While the Official Opposition is pleased that the Bay du Nord project has progressed to another milestone, important questions remain about the Benefits Agreement. This milestone builds on years of work by the former Liberal Government, which fought vigorously with the Federal Government to complete the environmental assessment and enable significant revenue and employment opportunities for Newfoundland and Labrador.
Today in the House of Assembly, the Official Opposition pressed the Conservative Government on its broken commitment to deliver guaranteed topsides work to Newfoundland and Labrador. Instead, the Premier signed away leverage in exchange for the opportunity to bid on the topsides work, with no work guaranteed for the province. The Government was also unable to point to any off-ramps in the agreement, even if no topsides work is ultimately awarded to the province.
The Conservatives continued to promote a partial investment in a drydock as a replacement for topsides work. This drydock, estimated by experts to cost at least $350 million to develop, would leave provincial taxpayers responsible for the shortfall — a minimum of $150 million.
When pressed, the Minister of Energy admitted he did not even know whether any topsides work would be completed in the province. It is inconceivable that the minister would not be able to confirm one topsides job, when he previously insisted on them all.
The Government also refused to confirm whether it had asked the federal government, and been refused, to cover the minimum $150 million funding gap for the proposed drydock. It provided no clarity on whether provincial taxpayers are on the hook for the missing funds and, if so, what protections exist against potential cost overruns.
The Official Opposition maintains that funding for the drydock should have been secured in addition to the topsides work, not instead of it.
Despite repeated questions from the Official Opposition, the Conservative Government also failed to commit to a dedicated debate on the Benefits Agreement in the House of Assembly or to an independent review. Even worse, it has failed to make the details of the Benefits Agreement public, expecting workers, taxpayers, and other stakeholders to simply take its word for what is, and is not, contained within it.
-30-