May

12, 2010 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLVI No. 20

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Admit strangers.

Today the Chair would like to welcome two distinguished visitors in our

gallery. The Chair would like to say a special welcome to Chief Misel Joe of

Conne River and Myna Hibbs, a former member of the Nunatsiavut government.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair also welcomes the following members' statements:

the hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &White Bay North; the hon.

the Member for the District of Grand Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South; the hon. the

Member for the District of Kilbride; and the hon. the Member for the District of

St. John's West.

The hon. the Member for the District of The Straits &White Bay North.

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to recognize Mr. Ephriam Simms of St. Anthony

who received the Governor General's Commendation, an award presented to

individuals who have acted of great merit in providing assistance to others in a

selfless manner. Mr. Simms was presented this award during the St. Anthony Town

Council meeting on April 27, 2010.

Mr. Simms displayed remarkable bravery and quick response in assisting his

brother-in-law, Lee, during an unfortunate accident that occurred in Ontario,

September 2008. Lee was using a pressurized cylinder to spray gas and burn off

dry grass on his property - a technique used by some farmers to get rid of dead

grass. The flame caught his clothing on fire and the next thing Ephriam knew,

Lee was yelling that he was on fire.

Ephriam's quick response in removing some of his clothing helped save his

life although Lee still received third degree burns to his lower body.

Ephriam's mother-in-law nominated him for that award, and shows just how

thankful the family is that Ephriam was there to help at the right time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join with me today in

recognizing Mr. Ephriam Simms on receiving such an outstanding award. Although

he is a little embarrassed over the attention he has received, his quick action

made a difference that day and his brother-in-law survived.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Grand

Falls-Windsor-Green Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker and my fellow hon. Members of the House of Assembly, I rise today

with great pride to congratulate Barbara Fifield for her dedication to the Haiti

orphanage relief efforts.

When Barb saw a program on TV about making a child's dress from a pillowcase,

she immediately thought of the children in the orphanages in Haiti.

Barb felt that every little girl, especially the little girls who live in

Haiti deserve to have at least one new dress, and a brand new one at that.

So, because Barb loves to sew and takes great pleasure in helping out the

less fortunate, she has embarked on a journey that has led to donations of

trims, lace and pillowcases from friends and strangers alike.

I am sure that none of us will ever again look at a simple pillowcase without

thinking of the unselfish dedication of Barb and the beautiful smiles these

dresses will bring to the small children in Haiti.

I ask all hon. members to join with me today to thank Barb Fifield for being

a true Newfoundlander and Labradorian, dedicated, caring and a lady with a very

special heart.

Congratulations Barb. Job well done!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Kilbride.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, St. Kevin's High School, Goulds has seen some very

talented people come and go throughout the years. We have all heard of Wayne

Johnston, Alan Doyle, and Allan Hawco, all former St. Kevin's graduates. Al

Kelly is one of the most prominent robotic scientists in the world and a former

student of St. Kevin's High School.

There is another former graduate of St. Kevin's High School that few of us

know about who has made it big away from home. This young man is Keith Power, a

Newfoundland and Labrador born composer of music for film, television and video

games.

Keith worked in Toronto for a while where he was a musical director,

arranger, composer and record producer for Jaymz Bee, the Royal Jelly Orchestra

and the Beehive Singers. His work has been performed on stages from Carnegie

Hall, New York to the Papal Audience Hall in Rome.

In 2005, Keith moved to Los Angeles and took an assistant position with

composer Brian Tyler. Since then, Keith has assisted in the score production of

films like The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift ; Wars ; and

Annapolis . He has independently scored the Fox television series Drive ,

the feature film Otis E. and the Xbox 360/Playstation 3 videogame Dark

Sector . Keith has also produced hundreds of advertising campaigns for such

products as Visa, McDonald's and Telus. He also wrote live production music for

Disney World in Orlando, Florida, and scored the Comedy Network series, The

Gavin Crawford Show .

Originally from Goulds, Keith now resides in Santa Monica, California with

his wife, Erin, and son, Owen. His father is Lou Power, a former Bell Islander,

and a former mayor of the Goulds.

I ask all hon. members to join me in recognizing the great accomplishments of

one of our native sons, Keith Power.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of St. John's West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to pay tribute today to a truly wonderful

person with a remarkable record of volunteerism who passed away on April 4 of

this year.

Philomena Rogers was born in Port Saunders on January 9, 1931. She left home

as a very young woman and worked in Sydney, Nova Scotia, Corner Brook and

Stephenville. While in Sydney, she met and married a young soldier, Leo Rogers,

and they had three children daughters Anneliese and Gerry, and a son, Richard.

Gerry and Richard are with us today in the gallery.

As a military family, they moved from base to base around the country, as

well as in Germany, which gave Philomena an opportunity to become involved with

a multitude of charitable organizations.

In 1979, the family returned to St. John's where Philomena continued giving

of her time in ways such as volunteer with the Penitentiary Liturgical

Committee, as well as with Exon House. She was the founding president of the

Blue Bird Club, a support group for individuals with arthritis. She created the

food bank at Corpus Christi Parish, was a fundraiser for Iris Kirby House,

president of the Catholic Women's League not only in this Province, but also

in Manitoba and Germany and, probably the one for which she was most well

known, president of the Right to Life Association of Newfoundland and

administrator of Elizabeth House, a shelter for pregnant women in St. John's.

Mr. Speaker, when they ran out of space at Elizabeth House, she was often known

to accommodate the young women in her home.

In a recent tribute to Philomena in The Telegram , Colette Fleming of

the Right to Life Association says she discovered a letter while cleaning the

files. It is from a young woman to Philomena and it states: I want to tell you

that I am looking out for myself, but I just love you and I love you for the

things that you did to help me in my situation.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of many tributes but it speaks volumes. I ask hon.

members to join me today in paying tribute to Philomena Rogers and in extending

sincere sympathy to her family.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before the Chair calls Statements by Ministers, the Chair

would also like to recognize Mayor Bill Lockyer who is visiting us today from

the community of Lawn.

Welcome to the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to acknowledge National Nursing Week 2010.

The theme this year is Nursing: You Can't Live Without It!

The International Council of Nurses designated May 12 Florence

Nightingale's birthday as International Nurses Day in 1971. In 1985, in

recognition of the dedication and achievements of the nursing profession, the

second week of May was proclaimed as National Nursing Week in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, our government recognizes the pivotal role nurses play in the

provision of high-quality services in our health care system. From public

health, to long-term care, to hospital care, these well-educated, highly

competent professionals are on the front lines of patient care and are working

behind the scenes in management and administration to ensure the health and

overall well-being of the people in our Province.

Since taking office, Mr. Speaker, our government has made significant

investments to nursing recruitment and retention along with making improvements

to working conditions for our Province's nurses. Just recently, Eastern Health

announced it has recruited 126 new nurses from the 2010 graduating class.

Increased funding is available to health authorities to advance professional

development activities and to address recruitment and retention needs of the

workforce.

In May of last year, Mr. Speaker, we reached an agreement with the

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union that included a pay increase over four

years, plus increases to both starting and top salary scales. However, monetary

increases, Mr. Speaker, are only one part of the investment our government has

made to recruit and retain nurses.

Both the Bachelor of Nursing program and the Practical Nursing program have

undergone expansion, including a Bridging Program to enable licensed practical

nurses to bridge to the BN program.

Mr. Speaker, the creation of more full time RN and LPN positions to meet the

need for increased services for home care, public health and other areas, as

well as the decision to place additional nurse practitioners in emergency rooms,

enables us to more fully meet the health care needs of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Some of our investments, Mr. Speaker, in Budget 2010 include $137,400 to hire

licensed practical nurses to work in the communities of St. Anthony, Happy

Valley-Goose Bay and Labrador West, and $246,000 for the addition of four nurses

to ensure patient safety and quality of care in Neonatal Intensive Care.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express sincere

gratitude to our nurses in our Province who continue to contribute positively in

our health care system and provide exemplary care to each and every one of us

when needed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We too are very pleased to join with government today in recognizing National

Nursing Week in our country. Mr. Speaker, we here in Newfoundland and Labrador

probably know all too well the valuable role that nurses play within our health

care system.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years, I guess, our health care system

has been under some tremendous stress and challenges, but it is quite obvious

that people who work on the front lines, those who work in professions like

nursing, have certainly held strong in providing quality care to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, nurses provide a very diverse and complex role within our health

care system. We saw the valuable performance and role that they play only a few

years ago when they cut their hours within our own health care system in our own

hospitals and the gaps that existed because of that.

Mr. Speaker, I think that in changing roles, and I like the bridging program

that has been put in place to allow RNs to graduate into a BN program, but I

specifically like the nurse practitioner program, which brings us to a higher

scale of nursing and delivery on the front lines in this Province. I know many

of these nurse practitioners who work in our hospitals and clinics throughout

Newfoundland and Labrador and they do an exceptional job as well.

So, Mr. Speaker, despite the challenges I am sure that still exist for many

nurses in our Province, as was outlined by their president today in her release,

I want to use this opportunity to recognize the work they do, to commend them

for the great efforts that they have made, and certainly look forward to seeing

them rise to each new challenge with greater success in the future, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

I am very happy to stand with the minister and the Leader of the Official

Opposition during National Nursing Week to recognize the outstanding patient

centred care that our nurses provide. It is also a chance to call attention to

the role of the profession in optimizing our health system. I congratulate all

nurses on their continued dedication to our health and the wonderful work that

they do. We do continually hear from people about the attention they do get when

they are in our health institutions and how they are dealt with.

The government did give nurses their pay increases, which is helping with

retention and recruitment but we must also address working conditions by hiring

more nurses and by getting into more reorganization. We need community health

teams with nurse practitioners who can work together with other nurses, with

doctors and health professionals. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of

restructuring would go a long ways towards helping with prevention in our

communities and I encourage the minister to work with the health authorities in

looking at having more nurse practitioners put in place but also a restructuring

for their role in the health care system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise this hon. House that we

have received some terrific news with respect to the economic impact of the JUNO

Awards held in St. John's last month - news which adds to our expectation that

2010 will be a very good year for tourism in this Province.

Although a full economic impact assessment of the JUNOs is ongoing,

statistics with the major hotels in the capital city indicate room nights sold

were up 18 per cent over last April and revenue was up 26 per cent to almost $5

million.

The provincial government invested more than $1 million into the JUNOs, Mr.

Speaker, and we anticipated a short-term return on investment of about $10

million in economic activity generated. The national and international exposure

we received, including the opportunity to showcase 260 of our local artists,

will also bring long-term benefits to the Province - particularly in terms of

highlighting Newfoundland and Labrador's vibrant cultural scene.

Mr. Speaker, the good news for the tourism industry is not limited to St.

John's. To the end of March 2010, non-resident visitation throughout this

Province is up almost 8 per cent over the same period last year.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, last year was also a very good year as well.

This is very encouraging, Mr. Speaker, especially since the impact of the

JUNOs is not yet reflected in that number. In addition, we are also celebrating

colony established in Canada. Those celebrations culminate in a week of

activities being held from August 17 to August 22, and we anticipate many

visitors from Canada and around the world will be here to help us mark that

occasion.

In 2009, in partnership with the tourism industry, we launched Uncommon

Potential A Vision for Newfoundland and Labrador Tourism. We are already

seeing the positive effects of action we have taken through this strategy, Mr.

Speaker, and I have no doubt there will be more.

I am very excited about the 2010 tourism season, the growth we have

experienced over the past several years, and the potential for future growth,

and I invite my colleagues to encourage their friends and families outside the

Province to come visit us this year and experience all we have to offer.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for

an advance copy of his statement.

The JUNO events which we hosted here in this Province, of course, about a

month ago, was indeed a great event, well hosted, well put together. We were

very fortunate we had it, I believe twice in a ten-year period. It was great for

all the artists involved, the performers, the hotels, the bars, businesses in

general. Of course, any time that we can showcase our Province, particularly if

we do so here in the Province, it is a great opportunity of which we must avail.

There are many ways to advance tourism, and hosting these national-type

events, of course, are but one way of doing it. If we can only get the federal

government onside now, when it comes to Marine Atlantic Inc., and put some more

money into the infrastructure needs that exist there, both on the Port aux

Basques Gulf service and on the Argentia run, we would be better off when it

comes to attracting tourists from that end of the Province as opposed to just

through air travel and so on. So we do need some improvements on that end, and I

am sure the minister will be plying the ears of the federal ministers to see

that, in fact, happens.

Hats off to all those who did play a role in making the JUNOs a success, and

hopefully we will see them back here again soon.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement, and I am

happy once again we have had other opportunities but once again to stand and

recognize the success of the JUNOs, and to say congratulations to all those who

took part, not just the professional musicians but the organizers and especially

the volunteers.

In his statement, the minister mentions the report, the 2009 vision

statement, Uncommon Potential, and I have noticed that in Uncommon Potential it

talks a lot about the need for co-operative marketing activities, and also about

the need to improve our transportation infrastructure to continue to attract

more tourists.

At the Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador 2010 Lookout! Tourism Summit,

they talked about two of the most complex challenges for Newfoundland and

Labrador tourism right now are car rental availability and wayfinding.

So, I encourage the minister to recognize that while we have a wonderful

tourism marketing arm - and it has certainly shown to be extremely successful -

that he work closely with the industry to look at the issues of transportation

as well and of wayfinding because the marketing will only continue to be as

successful as these things are.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further statements by ministers?

Oral Questions.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the first application for access to Quebec's transmission

system, which would guarantee access for the Lower Churchill, was denied by

Rgie the energy regulator in Quebec.

I ask the Premier today, because we are sure that government must have

reviewed all the documents that passed down the result, and I ask: Will you

have the opportunity to read it ourselves?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to date, up to this point I have not

or will be made available. We relied, of course, on advice that we received in

legal council who are doing the

interpretation at this particular point in time,

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier, if he can explain what the technicality was

that led to this dismissal and is it possible that there was any mistake on our

part? I just want to clarify that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The technicality, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. It goes

back to the arrogance and the discriminatory practices of Quebec, if I may speak

in general terms. It has obviously been reflected now in a decision by its

regulatory authority, which is the Rgie.

I have to say that the decision, although predictable due to the behaviour of

Quebec over the years and their attitude and their constant direction in trying

to stop us from completing the Lower Churchill and trying to inhibit us and

prevent us, this decision took my breath away, on the basis that I was at least

expecting that this jurisdiction might finally give us some fairness and some

equity and some justice.

I find it really difficult to understand how they could have done us such a

grave injustice back in the 1960s, which carries on to this very day, which has

cost us billions and will cost us billions and billions of dollars, has

prevented us from being a have Province for decades, to turn around then and to

be so small to try and prevent us now proceeding with the Lower Churchill

project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the Premier's comments. I could have a few choice

words myself, I guess, around the whole history with Quebec, but we are

wondering what the technicality was that caused this to be thrown out or

dismissed at this stage, and we ask the government if they could provide that

information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary memorandum legal opinion,

which was provided to me, has four pages of problems and errors in that

particular decision. This decision did not turn on a technicality. There is a

technicality, however, that is present in the decision which just shows how

blatantly incorrect and unjust this decision is. That is a requirement where the

Rgie has found that we should basically, technically, complete the entire

process of negotiation of an open access agreement with Hydro-Quebec in a period

of forty-five days.

Now it took us four years to get to this particular point, but the Rgie has

found that the forty-five day period is a period in which that should be

negotiated otherwise the clock starts all over again and our application gets

dismissed and gets dropped, but that was not the technicality upon which this

application was denied. This application was denied on every single, reasonable,

legitimate ground that we put forward and this will have to stand the test of

scrutiny by people right across Canada, including the people in Ontario and the

Maritimes who want this power and the people in the United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government apparently in its statements this morning indicated that

Quebec should be following the rules established by FERC.

I would ask the government today: Why are we wasting our time in dealing with

Rgie in Quebec when we feel that we are getting unfair treatment from that

particular body and from Quebec and we feel that FERC is the best option? So why

are you not pursuing that aggressively first?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the Leader of the

Opposition, this is an extremely complex process and procedure. In order for us

to gain access in Quebec, or to go through Quebec in order to provide power

either to Quebec or to Ontario, to the Maritimes, or ultimately to the United

States, we have to get access in Quebec. So there is an access application that

has to happen in Quebec.

Over the last several years, and perhaps in the past, we have been following

proper procedures and rules and policies and regulations. We have done

everything by the book on the very best advice that money can buy and that we

have internally and domestically within Nalcor and within the Department of

Natural Resources. This is the proper procedure. This is the only procedure that

we could follow. In fact, in order to complete this procedure we would actually

have to appeal again to the Rgie, then we would have to go to the Superior

Court in Quebec, and then we would ultimately go to the Supreme Court of Canada.

So we have to follow this particular procedure.

However, FERC comes into the picture - if I may just have a moment by way of

explanation. FERC comes into the picture because when Quebec sells power in the

United States they have to play by the FERC rules in the United States. So,

therefore, there should be some harmony, there should be some reciprocity. The

rules should be similar on both sides of the border.

What Quebec is doing to us, in our own country, is not playing by the rules

under any circumstances. It is not following the rules that they are forced to

follow in the United States of America. So, they are doing one thing on one side

of the border and shafting Newfoundland and Labrador on the other side of the

border.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the government: What impact will this decision right now have on the

timelines of the Lower Churchill? We know that this application has been before

Rgie since 2006 and we understand there is a second application that has been

there since 2007.

So we ask the government today: What impact will this have on the timelines

of the development of that project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, due to the discriminatory practices that

Quebec has exhibited over the years not only in recent years, in past years

and what they have done to try and prevent us from developing the Lower

Churchill and what they have done by not even considering any redress under the

Upper Churchill, a long time ago we looked at alternate routes and we felt that

in order to have any leverage with Quebec in any future negotiations or any

leverage on the Lower Churchill, we had to look at an alternate route. That

route has been known as the Maritime route possibly, I guess, it probably

should be known more correctly as the Atlantic route but it has been known as

the Maritime route.

When we first tabled that route and we put it forward, there was criticism,

for example, in The Globe and Mail , there were columnists in The Globe

and Mail who obviously were following direction from Hydro-Quebec that

indicated that this was not possible, that this was not feasible, that

underwater cables had not happened anywhere else in the world when there was

ample present, but despite that controversy and despite that opposition, we

proceeded and we have developed a Maritime route. We are looking at that very,

very seriously. That will proceed, that will proceed on time. It will not be

inhibited in any manner whatsoever by what has happened during this Rgie

ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question for the Premier - and I do not

know if I should duck before I ask it - but given the regulatory process and the

unfavourable results, I guess, that we have received thus far through the

process that we have taken: Is there any consideration being given to the

political route and starting discussions with the Premier of Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, discussions were held just sort of on an

informal basis a long time ago with the Premier of Quebec with regard to whether

there was any opportunity, because what we are looking at doing is probably

doing two routes: basically, the Maritime route which would take power down into

the Maritimes to assist our Maritime neighbours and, of course, obviously to

sell our product there; also, to go through Quebec and into Quebec and into

Ontario and perhaps New Brunswick and on down to the States. That has been

explored.

The behaviour that is being exhibited by Quebec does not lend itself to any

kind of a negotiation whatsoever. Our door has always been open to any kind of a

reasonable negotiation but only on terms that are good for Newfoundland and

Labrador.

Quebec's attitude on this has been: Look, this is really our power, this is

really our project, this is really our river and that is really our land. Just

drop that power off to us on our border, give it to us very, very cheap and then

we will sell that on your behalf. We will make exorbitant profits but we will

not give you any of that.

The last agreement which was going to be reached by the Grimes government

back in 2002 or 2003 was an agreement that did just that. Quebec would have

basically marketed it, they would have built it, they would have financed it, we

would have sold power at I cannot remember, it might have been 3 cents or 4

cents if I remember correctly, something absurd. We would have basically given

it away and Quebec would have walked away with it again.

So, the actions and the behaviour that has been exhibited by Quebec do not

lend itself to any type of reasonable negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier today the Premier announced that Captain Mark Turner had been chosen

to conduct a review of the environmental issues and oil spill responses in our

offshore industry. Captain Turner, as we all know, is very well respected and

very knowledgeable about the oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, we do not question this individual's qualifications to conduct a

review; however, we do realize that he has been involved in the oil and gas

industry development sector. There is a thought out there, Mr. Speaker, by

people that see Captain Turner as a developer within the industry.

I ask the Premier today: Because of his involvement as a developer in this

industry, will he be compromising an independent review? Will he be in a

conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I did not take his c.v. with me to the House today - I wish I

had it in front of me. Just from his own background and his credentials, he has

been chosen because first of all he is a captain, he is a master mariner and he

has his masters as well in admiralty law.

He has been involved on the environmental side and on the industry side with

regard to the gas project, the LNG facility that was going to happen in

Placentia Bay. He has been involved in the offshore oil and gas industry in this

Province for, I would suggest to you, in excess of twenty-five years and perhaps

longer.

He is an eminently qualified individual who I think, fortunately, brings it

all to the table. He knows the sea, he knows the oil and gas industry, he knows

the law. I cannot think of anyone better to give us a review and, in fact, an

independent review of exactly how we should proceed. He is going to be looking

at what we are doing now. He is going to be looking at what is happening in the

Gulf of Mexico. He is going to be looking at best practices. He is going to be

looking at our regulations. He is going to give us an honest, accurate,

independent assessment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, while this review is one approach in evaluating

the effectiveness of our regulations, it only provides a snapshot in time of our

current system. It does not promote a continuous monitoring process.

I ask the Premier today: Are you and your government willing to consider a

task force option that will consist of representatives from the various industry

groups, whether that be environmentalists, the fishery, and the oil industry

sector and so on, who could provide advice and recommendations on a continuous

basis?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources and Deputy

Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's question relates very

specifically to the motion that we are going to debate here in the House this

afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some kind of a perception that we have total

control over what happens in our offshore. This is a shared jurisdiction with

the federal government. However, that does not stop us from reviewing procedures

and practices. They are reviewed on a regular basis, but given the circumstances

in the Gulf of Mexico, we feel it is important at this point in time to have

that independent review. That is what we are going to undertake, that is what

was announced this morning with Captain Turner, and we will have a fuller

discussion of this whole issue as the day moves on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no problem with an independent review; however, we feel that

government needs to take this a step further, and I do not buy into the argument

that this should not be our responsibility.

I say to the minister today: Will you not consider implementing a task force,

in addition to the independent review that you are going to do, to ensure that

we have continuous follow up in this industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Deputy Premier and Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Premier just spoke to, and we announced this morning, we

are going to do a complete independent review of the policies, procedures,

legislation, best practices not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but in our

country and internationally. Everything will be reviewed. If out of that review

comes a recommendation that there should be some other layer on top of the many

layers of surveillance and accountability that are already there, Mr. Speaker,

then it is certainly something we will consider.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reports in the national media today are suggesting that Canadian drilling

regulations were relaxed last year. With the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico,

many of these issues are obviously just coming to light now.

I ask the Premier: Were you consulted or advised of these changes and what

are the potential implications on the offshore in our Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Natural Resources.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the drilling and production regulations associated with our

offshore drilling were, in fact, changed effective December 31, 2009. As I said

in my last question, this is a shared jurisdiction between ourselves, Nova

Scotia and with the federal government - two accord acts at work.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, amendments were made to the regulations. There are no

differences or any relaxing of standards and benchmarks that have to be

achieved. What happened with the amendment, we moved from prescriptive

regulations to goal oriented regulations allowing new technologies, innovation,

best practices to be implemented in a timely way instead of having to go through

a rigorous process that involves at least two governments and takes an awful lot

of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that the C-NLOPB in this Province is somewhat responsible for the

environmental and safety aspects of the offshore, but, Mr. Speaker, we also know

that yesterday they issued a safety directive related to lifeboat safety. This

review was in the works for three years coming out of an incident during the

Coast Guard exercise in carbon monoxide poisoning going back to 2007.

I ask the Premier today: Because these safety regulations are only coming

forward now from the C-NLOPB, how can we be guaranteed that any recommendations

related to environmental and safety improvements in our oil industry are not

delayed in the same manner and do not come to light for three years later?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks precisely to the point that she asked the

question about the last time she was on her feet. That is why there were

amendments made to the drilling and production regulations to allow the industry

to have more agility in responding to new technologies and best practices.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that

the C-NLOPB has a chief safety officer responsible for human safety and chief

environmental officer who have responsibilities and have the authority to work

autonomously from the board. So, in the event of a threat to human or

environmental safety, they can act immediately, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to again ask the minister: If this organization is so swift to react,

why has it taken them three years to issue the regulations that they did

yesterday? How do we have guarantees that the same thing will not happen in the

oil and gas industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the autonomy of the chief safety officer and the

chief environmental officer is so important, it is why it is important to do

appropriate amendments to allow industry to respond appropriately.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is a shared jurisdiction. In terms of

trying to do pieces of work, it can be very, very cumbersome. We always look to

ways that we have accountability, that the highest standards are maintained, but

how can we work to ensure that when best practices are established or changes

are needed, that we can affect them in a timelier manner, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to questioning on Chevron's drilling a record-breaking well in

deepwater in the Orphan Basin, the minister stated that she is confident and

satisfied that it is safe and prudent to continue with drilling in the Orphan

Basin.

I ask the minister specifically to tell us today: What extra safety measures

are normally implemented by Chevron above and beyond those used at Deepwater

Horizon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, drilling plans have to be put forward to the C-NLOPB. There is a

level of scrutiny that takes place there and with other organizations, both

within provincial jurisdiction as well as the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, the equipment that is going to be used, including the rig, has

to be certified by a third party, somebody like Lloyd's of London or Det

NorskeVeritas. There are quite a number of regulations, both from the C-NLOPB

and from the federal government, that need to be followed.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said here a number of times in this House last week,

for example, one backup system is required in the event of a BOP stack failure

in this country. The Stena Carron has three, Mr. Speaker. There is redundancy

not only once, but twice on this rig.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the plans were filed. What we do not know is what extra measures are

being taken in our Province that was not taken in Deepwater Horizon.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, I ask the minister if there was any additional

safety and pollution control changes that were made with Chevron in light of the

Deepwater Horizon disaster.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible) question.

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to repeat the

question.

MS JONES: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker.

The question was - I ask the minister: What additional safety and pollution

control changes were made by Chevron in light of the Deepwater Horizon

disaster?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would not be aware of what changes were

made as a result of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. We do not know what

happened in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Speaker, so it is a little early to start

making changes.

Mr. Speaker, we have a high standard in this country. We know that we have

backup systems on the Stena Carron that, apparently, were not available on the

rig in the Gulf of Mexico. What we have to do is ensure that we have the highest

of standards, that the risk is mitigated as much as can possibly be done, and

then, Mr. Speaker, to move ahead and to do monitoring to ensure that those

standards are adhered to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister obviously does not know if there were any extra safety measures

that were planned. She does not know if there were any additional safety and

pollution controls put in place. Yet, we are going nearly 3,000 metres deeper in

the North Atlantic than they did at Deepwater Horizon.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this question because the other day she

stood in the House and she said we have three backup plans in case of a valve

blowing. Well, Mr. Speaker, they had backup plans in the Gulf of Mexico as well

and they all failed because of engineering or other aspects.

I ask the minister today: What confidence does she have in the backup systems

that are here that they do not have in the drilling in the United States?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to provide the

information she is referring to. What backup systems? Were they the same backup

systems that we have on the Stena Carron? According to The Globe and Mail ,

no. So we have, in terms of blowout prevention stack failure, Mr. Speaker, we

have redundancy, at least three redundancies, while the country's regulations

Canada's regulations only requires one. We have three on the Stena Carron plus

the ability to drill a relief well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition knows that all of those

three redundancies existed on the rig in the Gulf of Mexico, I invite her to

stand and provide that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in an independent review that was done, and a

panel that was led by the late Dr. Leslie Harris, there was a recommendation

that there be independent observers placed on these particular oil rigs.

I ask the minister: Why is there no independent observers on the rigs off the

Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are three environmental officers who do regular checks

from the platforms with regard to oil spills. Mr. Speaker, best practices in the

industry worldwide will tell us that is not the best way of finding oil spills.

The best way to find an oil spill, Mr. Speaker, is from aerial surveillance. The

Canadian Coast Guard does regular runs over our platforms in the offshore as

well as our shipping, they report and that really is the best source of

information we could have with regard to oil spills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Information has told us that those surveillances by helicopters are not done

directly over the rigs, I say to the minister.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, in this Province today we have independent

observers on fishing boats all over Newfoundland and Labrador simply because we

all know that self reporting is the weakest form of reporting there is.

I ask you today, Minister: While you have the Stena Carron out there today

drilling 2,600 metres deeper than any other well and the state of what is going

on in the Gulf of Mexico, why do you not even take the minimum precaution of

putting independent observers on board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, self reporting is not the only mechanism that is at work. I just

said that we had - the C-NLOPB has a chief conservation officer who does regular

checks on installations. There are three environmental officers who do regular

inspections on platforms in our offshore, and, Mr. Speaker, we have the Coast

Guard doing regular surveillance runs over our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today the government announced the appointment of a consultant

to review offshore oil spill safety practices. This action is a good first step.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier said last week here in the House that he was open to

the idea of setting up an independent body that would regulate safety and

environmental practices in our offshore. The Premier also said he would need to

check the Atlantic Accord and look at any constitutional issues that might be a

barrier to setting up such a body. Mr. Speaker, since the regulatory body,

C-NLOPB, is a federal-provincial body, it makes sense that a safety and

environmental watchdog would be a federal-provincial one as well.

So I ask the Premier: Is he open to having discussions with the federal

government about this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, discussions go on all the time between

federal officials and provincial officials. In fact, if I remember correctly,

discussions have gone on recently between the federal ministry and the

provincial ministry with regard to these very issues. We have to be really

careful with regard to the jurisdiction under the Atlantic Accord because if we

start to open up jurisdictional issues we can open up the Accord, and that has

always been a concern of this government and people who were involved in

negotiating that accord in the beginning.

With regard to the point that was raised by the hon. member opposite last

week when she indicated that the terms of review or whatever it was, I did

indicate at that particular point in time that we had already considered a

review, and of course, we were in fact doing that. Of course now, as indicated

previously, we have decided on Captain Mark Turner as being a person capable and

independent and qualified, and eminently qualified in order to conduct that

review.

With regard to ongoing dialogue between both governments, that actually

happens, and we try to have a dialogue as much as possible between our

Department of Natural Resources and the C-NLOPB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do thank the Premier for his answer, but I wonder if he could tell me if he

will specifically look at this whole notion of a separate body to regulate

environmental and safety issues as part of the ongoing dialogue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be quite a bit of misunderstanding about the role

of the C-NLOPB.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB is the chief regulator here in this Province, and we

have had discussion with regard to whether or not certain responsibilities

should be stripped away from the C-NLOPB because it has been described as

economic benefits, royalties being set, that all of these responsibilities lie

with the board. Mr. Speaker, none of those responsibilities lie with the board.

None of them. The C-NLOPB is the regulator, and what we see happening in the

rest of the world is they are moving their boards to where our board already is.

They are separating royalties, economic benefits from the regulation, safety and

environment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The reality is that everything is under the one umbrella. They recognized in

Norway, they recognized in the UK and they recognized yesterday in the United

States that having everything under the one umbrella does not work.

The Premier said last week he is willing to look at the other models. Is that

still going to happen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw yesterday in the United States is that nation moving

to the model that we already have. Mr. Speaker, royalties are set and collected

by the provincial government. Mr. Speaker, industrial benefits regarding

offshore projects is negotiated by the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, everything to do with the economic pieces, including the

promotion of our offshore, is done by our provincial government. The only piece

that the C-NLOPB does, it offers up lands for sale, but, Mr. Speaker, there is a

sole criteria, there is no subjectivity required. When lands are put up for

sale, there is one criteria; the highest bidder, and the highest bidder always

wins the sale, Mr. Speaker.

So, what we see happening in the United States and happening in other parts

of the world, is those countries moving towards the system we already have in

place right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Select Committees.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUTCHINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as Chair of the Social Services Committee, I am pleased to

report that the Committee considered the matters to them referred and have

passed, without amendment, the Estimates of the following departments:

Department of Child, Youth and Family Services; Department of Justice;

Department of Health and Community Services; Department of Human Resources,

Labour and Employment; the Department of Municipal Affairs; and the Department

of Education.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Committee members: the Member

for the District of Port de Grave; the Member for the District of Port au Port;

the Member for The Straits & White Bay North; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse

au Clair; the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi; the Member for Cape St.

Francis; the Member for St. John's North; and the Member for St. Barbe.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion of the Estimates as we move

forward in the Legislature, and I will have further comments on them at that

time.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Further presenting of reports by standing and select

committees?

Tabling of Documents.

Notices of Motion.

Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given.

Petitions.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Port de Grave.

MR. BUTLER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I think I have six more petitions left, two for this week and four for next

week. It is getting close to the twenty-fourth of May weekend. All our campers

and trailer owners - but a lot of them I guess will not be up singing at their

cabins this year like they were in any other years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read the prayer of the petition:

WHEREAS we the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have always built cabins

and tilts away from our home for hunting, fishing, berry picking or just

spending time up in the country or places around our shores sometimes just to

get away from the stress of everyday living, a place to relax and enjoy the

great outdoors - this is word for word, not a word changed, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS your government has come down hard on the thousands of cabin and

trailer owners that are out on our land with eviction notices and forcing them

to move without providing them with an alternative; and

WHEREAS Kruger Incorporated has timber rights to approximately one-third of

all forest land on this Island and is refusing the vast majority of application

for cabin development;

WHEREUPON your petitioners call upon all members of the House of Assembly to

urge government to have compassion on the citizens of this fair Province and

allow them to enjoy what is rightfully ours. We were born on this land and

should have the right to enjoy it, and as in duty bound your petitioners will

ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, I have another couple of hundred names here today from the

following areas: Robert's Arm, Triton, Seal Cove, St. Alban's, St. Jacques,

Conne River, Corner Brook, Harbour Breton, South Brook, Grand Falls-Windsor. Mr.

Speaker, those people are asking that we would present those petitions on behalf

of them with regard to the life that they have enjoyed and their families for

many, many years. Originally, this was not targeted - they would not target

gravel pit campers because it was culture uniqueness and a historical meaning to

the practice of the people who enjoyed the great outdoors.

Mr. Speaker, many of them are speaking out and asking - in their petition

they ask the government to sit down with them, to consult with them. I know

there are different areas around this Province where there are major

environmental problems. We understand that, and the greater number of those

people understands that. They are just asking government to sit down and have a

conversation with them so that this can come to a successful conclusion, so they

can enjoy the great outdoors like they did for many, many years.

Mr. Speaker, since the last petition I have had a couple of phone calls where

people are saying: we hear our member standing up praising rural Newfoundland,

and rightly so, talking about how wonderful the Premier is - rightly so - but

they said surely they must be able to get up and express the concern that we

have with this issue. They are our elected officials. We just want them to ask

it is not being down on government just ask them to reconsider what they are

doing here. This has been going on for years and that is all they are asking

each and every member of this House, Mr. Speaker: to reconsider; that they will

have another look at it and allow, through the proper procedures, through

following all the environmental issues, that lands will be provided for them to

continue on with the enjoyment that they have had for many years.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Further petitions?

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: There being no further petitions, and this being Wednesday,

Private Members' Day, I call on the hon. Member for the District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair to present her private member's resolution.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today and present a private member's motion, and that motion, Mr.

Speaker, is really calling on the government to implement a task force to

examine the current environmental safety procedures around the oil and gas

industry. Mr. Speaker, it talks about policies and processes that are in place;

it will allow them to make recommendations where best practices and technology

changes; to review the industry on an annual basis; to review the protocols for

potential oil spills in Placentia Bay; produce an annual work plan to enhance

oil spill preparedness and response capabilities throughout all drilling areas

and oil transport routes near Newfoundland and Labrador to avoid and to mitigate

the effects of a possible oil spill that could devastate the waters off our

coast for decades to come.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that it is important to present this motion to the House

of Assembly and to government in light of what has been happening in the Gulf of

Mexico. We know, Mr. Speaker, that over the last number of days the incident in

the Gulf has been absolutely devastating devastating to everyone around the

world who is involved in the oil and gas industry but, Mr. Speaker, much more

devastating to the people who live there. Because, Mr. Speaker, what we have is

thousands of barrels of oil each day for the last number of weeks being pumped

into the ocean, contaminating not only everything in the sea, but also affecting

the seabird population and all of the environmental aspects around this

particular area.

Mr. Speaker, I guess in our Province, not unlike any other province or

jurisdiction in the world, sometimes when you have things like this happening it

becomes a wake-up call. It really becomes a wake-up call for all of us to start

paying a little bit more attention to how things work within certain aspects of

our industries. This has certainly been a wake-up call for me as a member of

this Legislature and as a person who feels that in my position it is a

responsibility for all of us to ensure that the proper regulatory regimes are in

place, the proper environmental and safety precautions are being taken, and that

everything that we can do from a preventive perspective should be done. Mr.

Speaker, based on that, we have certainly felt that it has been necessary to

bring forward a motion to the House of the Assembly today.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that in the last three weeks since we have seen oil

spilling out into the Gulf at a rate of 5,000 barrels per day from the damaged

well - and knowing that this rig that has been drilling off the coast of

Louisiana is doing nothing any differently than what we see in oil well drilling

off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. Over that period of time, Mr.

Speaker, we have seen a number of comments from the government, and in

particular from the minister responsible; not the Minister of Environment, I

might add, because I do not think the Minister of Environment in this Province

has even spoken one word on this particular issue. If she did, Mr. Speaker, it

was very few words because I certainly did not hear them anywhere, or read them

anywhere, in the information that I have.

Mr. Speaker, in questioning the government around our own backup systems -

because what you have to realize is that the backup system failed to shut down

the well in the Gulf after the rig exploded, and it sank two days later,

damaging the pipe running from the well. As a result of that, Mr. Speaker,

whatever the reason was for that technology and that backup system to fail,

whether it was engineering default or whether it was some other process, Mr.

Speaker, what we do know is that the backup system did fail, despite what the

minister said today.

The minister, Mr. Speaker, says that we have three backup systems available

in this Province. One is the acoustic transponder system; the other one is the

remotely operated vehicle to activate the blowout protection stack, and she said

there are also ram stacks in the wall that have the capacity to shut down the

well if there is a problem.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we would like to know what happened with these rigs in the

Gulf that their backup systems did not work. We would like to know that. Mr.

Speaker, just like when Sikorsky helicopters had the crash, it woke up the whole

world that used these helicopters and that was in this kind of a business. It

woke up everybody to take every precaution that was necessary to ensure that

these things did not happen again.

Mr. Speaker, while we have 5,000 barrels of oil floating out into the Gulf

every day for the last three weeks, the government in this Province sees no

problems why we should not be going 2,600 metres deeper into the North Atlantic

without having any backup system proven that can work in the case of an oil

spill.

Do you know what is even more condescending, Mr. Speaker, coming from the

government? The government feels that there is no problem. In fact, the

minister's own comments only a few days ago - and I refer to the Minister of

Natural Resources, because the Minister of Environment has yet to say peep on

this whole issue. The Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, actually said

that they have no concerns. Yet, within the same breath, within a few days, she

moved to put in place an independent review, although she had no concerns, Mr.

Speaker. That tells me that there was some concern. Now it might not be the

level of concern that I would like to see; it is certainly not the level of

concern that environmentalists and industry observers out there today would like

to see, but one very tiny, small step on behalf of the government, Mr. Speaker,

who recognize that this is a problem.

Mr. Speaker, what has to be realized is several things around this entire

issue. When we were asking questions, in fact, one of the issues that came up

was the time to have a response rig, Mr. Speaker, another rig, available to go

in this Province. As we know, today there is no rig out here that we can use. In

fact, Mr. Speaker, the only rigs that are available to us happen to be in the

Gulf of Mexico.

Mr. Speaker, we need to question how long it will take these particular rigs

to respond if there is some kind of a blowout with the Stena Carron off the

shores of Newfoundland and Labrador right now. Mr. Speaker, government just

really smirks at the idea that we should be taking more precautions and more

prevention. This is unbelievable. There is some mindset over there that this

cannot happen to us.

We know all too well, Mr. Speaker, that it can very well happen to us and it

could be even more damaging and more devastating; but, what we have not seen is

any action right now by the government to show any level of concern. In fact,

they keep saying that the C-NLOPB is the body that is supposed to look after the

environmental and safety regulations. We hear yesterday they are out releasing

information that they should have released three years ago with regard to safety

regulations affecting carbon monoxide incidents on Coast Guard boats. So how can

you have a complete level of confidence?

More so than that, Mr. Speaker, the government has a responsibility here and

their responsibility is not negated by the C-NLOPB. They are the ultimate people

who are responsible for industry development in this Province. There is nothing

that says they cannot be an overseer from an environmental and safety

perspective in order to ensure that the most preventative methods that can be

taken in this industry are taken. I am not just talking about responding to a

spill, once a spill occurs. I am not just talking about the response but I am

talking about prevention as well, and that is a very critical component to all

of this, Mr. Speaker.

We need to have better environmental protection, and when we have better

environmental protection, Mr. Speaker, we have better human safety. We know that

in this Province we have seen a lot of environmental damage already done. We

have seen up to 3,000 seabirds in Placentia Bay in any particular year that has

been collected. We have seen other incidents in this Province of oil slicks

along our shores and how it has affected things like the fishing industry. So,

Mr. Speaker, we need to pay much more attention to those things and what is

happening.

Mr. Speaker, there are many people out there who feel that the C-NLOPB is not

independent but rather a developer. Just like they see the individual who was

just appointed to do the independent review, a master mariner, I agree, a

lawyer, a very highly qualified individual, very knowledgeable of the industry,

but he is also seen as a developer in that industry. Because he is involved with

the liquid gas technology and developing that technology for the offshore

industry, he is seen as being in a conflict of interest. A lot of the people out

there who are concerned about this industry, who are environmentalists and

industry watchers, would very much like to see an independent process.

Mr. Speaker, what we are proposing to government today is that they not just

do an independent review and then put it on the shelf where it does not get

dealt with any more, but in fact that they do a task force. There is a very

significant difference between a task force and an independent review, because

an independent review is very much just a snapshot in time. It is conducted by

one individual, it is mostly their opinion and there is no ability to follow up

or to review at a later date.

Whereas with a task force, Mr. Speaker, it is very open and it is very

ongoing for as long as it needs to be. It provides input from all different

sectors. It has a review and a monitoring process that is built in. It takes

into consideration and includes multiple points of view. It would include people

from the science community with expertise in biology, in law, in industry, in

engineering, in economics, in oil and gas, the whole bit. It also produces an

ongoing work plan. That is what we have seen in looking at the task force that

exists in Western Canada today, which has been ongoing for quite some time,

where they still file work plans in that province in looking at task forces that

have been set up in other areas and how those task forces work. It becomes

another level of accountability. It becomes another way to ensure that the best

technologies, the best mechanisms, the best preventative methods are in place

and it is being monitored on a regular basis.

Why government would not want to do that, why they feel so threatened by

putting an overriding process in place that gives you the extra guarantees, I am

not sure. It is like putting the independent observers on these oil rigs. We are

out there today with independent observers on every single fishing boat, I guess

that goes out any distance off sea at all, in order to ensure a more accurate

reporting system. Yet, we do not do that on the oil rigs.

Fishermen today, because of that policy, have to pay those observers out of

their own pocket and take them at random when they want to go to report on

everything, from the kind of mesh sizes that they use, the number of pots that

they set, how long they tow their trawls, or what kind of fathom of trawl they

are using, to what their catch rates are and so on. Yet, in the oil and gas

industry where we have companies - and companies, Mr. Speaker, that I am sure

are doing what they committed to do in as much as they have to; companies that

are out there today going about their business drilling their oil wells, pumping

gas, bringing it onshore, that is their business. That is what they are doing

and they are doing a great job of it, but it is our business to ensure, Mr.

Speaker, that there is absolutely full compliance. That there are the best

preventative methods put in place that we can, meaning observers on oil rigs,

independent observers; meaning that there is a task force out there as a

watchdog for the industry to ensure that all the best technologies are

incorporated, that everything is followed to the extent that it should be and

that there is a continuous process of reporting.

So, it is not just a one-time thing where you have an independent review

and I have no problem with the independent review, go ahead and do it, Mr.

Speaker. Take the individual they have appointed to do it and put them on the

task force if that is what they want, but there are people who are concerned

with this individual because they feel that they are a developer in the

industry, that they are a player, and that they are developing technologies

around liquid gas for this industry and therefore they cannot have an

independent view. That perspective is out there, Mr. Speaker.

Having said that, our purpose today is to draw government's attention to this

issue in light of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, to get them to stop

and take a second sober look at what is happening in the industry in this

Province, instead of going out there, Mr. Speaker, and allowing for this

particular Chevron right now to drill 2,600 metres deeper into the North

Atlantic and turn a blind eye; it is unacceptable behaviour for government.

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has expired.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion brought

forward by the members opposite. We have heard a lot of debate around this issue

in our Province recently, nationally and internationally, Mr. Speaker, because

of the incident in the Gulf of Mexico.

Today, we are debating the merits of reviewing the environmental and safety

procedures in our offshore oil and gas industry. That is a good thing, Mr.

Speaker. That is a worthy debate. When we are able to stick to the facts and

have a discussion about the reality of what exists, and then have a further

discussion about how we improve on that, because that should always be top of

mind, Mr. Speaker, then we should have a very good debate and I am interested in

hearing what people have to say.

Mr. Speaker, it is important though to acknowledge, right from the outset,

that we have a legislative structure that is based on the highest possible

standards for safety and production, and for the environment. We strive to

maintain those standards by amending the legislative and regulatory structure as

required. So, as often as it needs to get done, Mr. Speaker, we do just that. We

have strong processes and capabilities that have been built on and improved over

the history of this industry, particularly here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We

understand that all of this makes for a very strong foundation upon which we can

continually build and improve. We have lots to be proud of in Newfoundland and

Labrador, Mr. Speaker, and in some instances we are leading the way in this

industry, but we always must be diligent to ensure that environmental and safety

requirements are the best in the world, and the actual practices in the industry

mirror those requirements.

Mr. Speaker, we have had tragic incidents in our offshore that we never want

to see repeated. This fact should never be downplayed; it should never be

forgotten. These incidents should always be foremost in our minds so that we

continue to ensure that we are doing whatever needs to be done, that best

practices evolve from our learning from those tragic incidents. Mr. Speaker, we

owe that to the victims of those tragedies. We owe that to their families and to

their communities.

Mr. Speaker, we also have to learn from the tragic events that have taken

place in the Gulf of Mexico. The loss of life - and all of us send our deepest

condolences to the people in the United States, particularly the families of the

people who were lost on that rig. All of us share a concern about what is

happening in terms of the oil spill into the Gulf and the impact that might have

on the environment. All of us are keenly interested in understanding what

happened in that incident, and what lessons can be learned, and how can we

prevent that sort of thing from ever happening again, particularly, preventing

it from ever happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have a forty-year history of oil and gas development here in Newfoundland

and Labrador, particularly of drilling in the offshore. We have had

environmental incidents here in our offshore, and thankfully, those incidents

have not been significant and they have been able to be mitigated. Mr. Speaker,

we have produced 1 billion barrels of oil up to this point in our history. To

have done so, so successfully, is indeed a tribute to the industry and to the

regulators of the industry here in the Province. The oil and gas industry

employs thousands of people in our Province, men and women in all facets, Mr.

Speaker, including environmental and safety management. All of the experts on

safety and all of the experts on environment do not just reside outside of the

oil industry or the regulatory agencies. These men and women and their families

want to ensure that every step possible is being taken, Mr. Speaker, to ensure

the safety of workers and protection of the environment.

As I said earlier this week, there is risk involved in our offshore but we

have to understand that risk, mitigate it as best we can, and then, given the

known risk, make a decision as to whether or not we are going to proceed. We

have made that decision in Newfoundland and Labrador, we made the decision in

Canada and it is made worldwide.

Mr. Speaker, all commentaries around this issue over the last several weeks

have talked about the fact that we are not quickly going to move away from oil

production onshore or offshore in the world. While there is risk associated with

it, we must continue to do everything we can to evolve best practices and do

everything we can to ensure that accidents in the Gulf of Mexico do not happen.

Mr. Speaker, there has been quite a discussion, as I said, in Question Period

about the C-NLOPB and its role. Even the call for the task force indicates to me

that there is not a real understanding of the role of the C-NLOPB. The C-NLOPB

and Labrador. The C-NLOPB is not an arm of the oil production companies or the

drilling companies, they are the regulator. There has been much misinformation

put out about the role of the C-NLOPB and what its responsibilities are, and

accusations made of a conflict of interest inherent in the structure of the

C-NLOPB, which is not substantiated in fact.

Most regimes in the world that had these types of boards had included in

their responsibilities, responsibility for fiscal regimes as well as economic

benefits. They have decided and we have seen a move worldwide and just

announced yesterday in the United States to move away from those dual

responsibilities and move strictly to the role of a regulator separating out the

economic pieces. Mr. Speaker, our board is already structured that way, so we

were ahead of the pack in terms of how our board was structured.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB does not set royalties; nor does it collect

royalties. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador does that. Mr. Speaker,

when oil companies are negotiating the development of a project here in the

Province they do that negotiation with the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador and the industrial benefits are negotiated by the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB does not promote land sales throughout the world.

That is the role of the Department of Natural Resources. I happened to be at the

OTC event in Texas last week the biggest oil conference in the world. That is

what we were doing there, we were promoting this Province, what it is that we

have in terms of prospectivity, what conditions we have to offer and incentives

we have to offer in terms of coming here and doing that kind of work and making

this a good place to make an investment. We do the promotion. Yes, Mr. Speaker,

the C-NLOPB does offer up lands for sale, but again it is sole criteria - sole

criteria - not like other boards where they have multiple criteria. If there is

a requirement to sit down with companies and negotiate, subjectivity is

required.

Mr. Speaker, that is not so in the way that we conduct our land sales in this

Province. There is a sole criterion: the highest bidder. There is a minimum bid

of $1 million dollars for any piece of land in our offshore that might be up on

offer, and then oil companies bid for the right to develop that land. What the

bid means, if a company comes in and says I bid $50 million on that piece of

land, what that means is that company will spend $50 million in trying to

develop that piece of land, trying to find oil, drill - so it is the amount of

money. It is not money that comes into the Treasury of the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is money that is spent in the offshore providing

work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for companies to provide services to

these perspective developers, and it is of great benefit to Newfoundland and

Labrador, but no subjectivity is required from the C-NLOPB.

There has been reference to a task force on the Pacific Coast, between the

Pacific Coast and British Columbia and the United States. They do not have an

oil and gas industry on the West Coast so, of course, the regulation of what

they are able to do is going to be very different from what it is that we are

doing here.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made a great deal about

independent observers. Mr. Speaker, best practices tells us that the best way to

detect oil spills is from the air; it is not from having somebody stationed on a

rig. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB has three environmental officers

that regularly visit not only our three operational projects that we have -

Hibernia, Terra Nova and White Rose - but they also visit any other rigs that

are operational anywhere in our offshore. They constantly are inspecting and

ensuring that the standards and the benchmarks have been met by the companies.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, we have a chief information officer and a

chief environmental officer who can work autonomously from the board to ensure

the protection of workers if they see any threat or any risk that is

unacceptable to workers or to the environment.

Mr. Speaker, you know, in terms of where we are in this Province, we have a

regulator who operates on behalf of the provincial and federal governments, who

maintain the highest standards. Mr. Speaker, we have a shared jurisdiction, and

any changes that are made to the regulations in the offshore have to be an

action of both ministers: the provincial minister and the federal minister. We

cannot do it unilaterally.

Mr. Speaker, we are more than prepared, as we have shown by our actions today

- the commitment by the Premier last week and our actions today - to always

review, to do that in a very open and transparent way, and to make

recommendations, appropriate recommendations, and to do everything that we can

to ensure that best practices are at work and the highest standards - the best

in the world - are what we have here in our offshore.

What has been put forward today by the Leader of the Opposition, I think, Mr.

Speaker, does not meet that benchmark. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer

the following amendment to the resolution that is on the floor of the House. Mr.

Speaker, my resolution is:

To move that the Private Member's Resolution currently before the House be

amended by deleting all recital clauses and the resolution clause and

substituting the following:

WHEREAS the provincial government has called for an independent review of oil

spill preparedness and response capabilities in light of the oil spill in the

Gulf of Mexico; and

WHEREAS the offshore oil industry is regulated by the C-NLOPB and there is a

public interest in knowing whether the regulatory regime and oil spill response

capacity is adequate or in need of improvements; and

WHEREAS Chevron is currently drilling in deep waters; and

WHEREAS the Grand Banks represent one of the richest fishing banks and

fragile ecosystems in the world and many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians could

be gravely impacted should a major oil spill occur;

THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly supports the provincial

government's decision to put in place an independent review to examine the

current oil spill prevention and response procedures, policies and processes;

make recommendations for "best practices and technology changes"; review

protocols for potential oil spills in Placentia Bay; and make recommendations to

enhance oil spill preparedness and response capabilities throughout all drilling

areas and oil transport routes near Newfoundland and Labrador to avoid and/or

mitigate the effects of a possible oil spill off our coast.

Mr. Speaker, this motion is seconded by the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde,

the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the amendment being put forward by the Minister of Natural

Resources. I understand it is normal in this House that the Chair would review

and see if the amendment is in order. We also would like to see if it is in

order, as well, have an opportunity to read it and make any comments that we

might have as to its validity. We have not seen it yet so we are not in a

position to comment only after just hearing her read it a few seconds ago.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take a short recess to provide an opportunity

for the amendment to be distributed to allow the Table Clerks and the Speaker to

review the amendment and determine whether or not the amendment is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

The Chair has reviewed the amendment and we have sought the advice as well of

the Table Clerks. We have decided we will give the Opposition House Leader an

opportunity to make his remarks, as he had not previously seen the amendment,

and base our decision once we have received the remarks of the Opposition House

Leader.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not have a lengthy submission to make, I would just point out that it is

our submission. We feel that the amendment is not in order, for a very obvious

reason. First of all, just to enunciate what has been done here, all of the

WHEREAS clauses have been gutted, no doubt. When it comes to the THEREFORE

BE IT

RESOLVED clause, much of the wording is the same. There is no question here that

what government has done, basically, is suggest that instead of a task force, as

the resolution requires and calls for, that it would instead be an independent

review.

By the way, we have no problem with the fact that, number one, you should be

allowed to propose amendments, and, number two, there is nothing wrong

necessarily with taking out all the

WHEREAS clauses. We have seen that done

before, so we are not disagreeing with that. In fact, referring to Beauchesne,

dealing with amendments in 567 on page 175 excuse me, 568, or excuse me,

567 it is - "The object of an amendment may be either to modify a question in

such a way as to increase its acceptability or to present to the House a

different proposition as an alternative to the original question." So there is

no question that the government could, as they have, proposed an alternative. Of

course, that has to be read as well in the context of what it says in 579.(2),

which says, "An amendment may not raise a new question which can only be

considered as a distinct motion after proper notice."

What we have here is we do not have anything done by this amendment to

increase its acceptability, as would be permissible, what we have here is an

exact opposite. It is an alternative, all right, as black is an alternative to

white, but it is such an alternative that it is on the opposite end of the

spectrum, that it is a totally different question. The whole question being

dealt with in this House, and put forward in the private member's motion, was to

have a task force. What has been put forward here is the proposition that we

have an independent review. You can use whatever recital clauses you want, that

is just the frills; that is just the dressing. The pith and substance in any

kind of motion or in any kind of amendment comes in the resolution clause. What

we have in this resolution clause are basically a couple of words changed. It

says instead of doing a task force, we will do an independent review. Now, that

is an alternative, but it does not make it generally acceptable. It is such an

alternative that it is a total negative to what was proposed.

It suggests that we have an independent review as opposed to a task force. I

do not think that is complicated. I think that

article 579.(2) deals with it.

It is a distinct question all together, it talks about a different animal, a

different beast that is being proposed here, and because it does it totally

nullifies what was put forward. Because it falls under

section 579.(2), it

raises an absolutely new question and therefore should be ruled out of order.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Government's position is we put forth the amendment as we feel it is in

order.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to draw your attention to Beauchesne

section

579.(1), which reads prior to subsection (2). It says; "An amendment setting

forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposition

involved in the main motion is not relevant and cannot be moved."

Mr. Speaker, because we have given an alternative to the task force but we

still agree with the independent review and the situation that needs to be

addressed, we feel that the amendment as put forward would not be considered

foreign to the proposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having some difficultly hearing the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, it reads, "An amendment setting forth a proposition dealing with a

matter which is foreign to the proposition involved in the main motion is not

relevant and cannot be moved."

Mr. Speaker, what we put forward is the amendment to suggest an independent

review by an individual as opposed to the task force as put forth in the

amendment. When we look at the substance of it, the matter that we put forward

is certainly not foreign to the proposition that is there in the original

motion.

Mr. Speaker, we feel that if you look at

section

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is a very serious issue we are debating here on the amendment. The Chair

would certainly appreciate the co-operation of all members of the House as I

listen to the argument being put forward by the Government House Leader.

MS BURKE: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

If we look at

section 579.(1) of Beauchesne, we feel that the amendment put

forward is not foreign to the original motion. So, therefore, it presents

another alternative but certainly is not considered the opposite. It is an

option that works with the original proposition that is put forward. It would

not be considered foreign. So, therefore, Mr. Speaker, we feel that the motion

as put forward by the hon. Minister of Natural Resources is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take a very brief recess to consider the points raised by both

the Opposition House Leader and the Government House Leader and make a

determination as to whether or not the amendment is in order.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (T. Osborne): Order, please!

Are the House Leaders ready to proceed?

MS BURKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has reviewed the arguments put forward by both

House Leaders. It is my determination that the primary issue under contention,

as raised by both House Leaders, is the issue of a review by an independent body

versus that of a task force, and it is clear that an amendment such as that,

which has been moved, is in order.

Erskine May, the twenty-second edition, page 343 states, "The object of an

amendment may be either to modify a question in such a way as to increase its

acceptability or to present to the House a different proposition as an

alternative to the original question." The latter purpose may be effected by

moving to omit all or most of the words of the question after the word that and

to substitute an alternative proposition which must, however, be relevant to the

contention of the motion.

I therefore rule that the amendment is in order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am happy to be able to stand and speak to the motion that is on the floor

of the House today. Just a reminder, we are all here to discuss the resolution

and now the amendment to that resolution that has been put to this House, but

the ultimate reason why we are here is because of the major incident that has

taken place in the Gulf of Mexico - took place a couple of weeks ago. An

incident that has really shocked the world, not so much because of the accident

itself, although the more information we are getting about that accident the

more we are being shocked, but shocked by the fact that with a blowout of a well

at the level of the Deepwater Horizon is something that the industry cannot deal

with.

I remember when specialists first arrived from BP - British Petroleum - and

were in the media talking about this method they were going to use to try to

stop the oil from spewing by putting this huge tank down over the well and

having the water forced up through a pipe to the surface. I remember the

specialist on the news that I saw talking about how they had no idea if it was

going to work because they had never tried this method of this depth before.

That person went on to point out that the issue, the big issue, is the fact that

the temperatures down at that level are much colder than what they would

normally use this method for, or in which they would normally use this method,

and also the water pressure would be much greater than at a lower depth. He

acknowledged that they did not know if what they were going to do was going to

work.

So, here we have a well that was allowed to be drilled by the US government

in the Gulf of Mexico at a depth of approximately 1,500 metres and the

specialist acknowledging that they did not know if they could really plug that

well, and that the technology they would normally use, he did not know if it

would work. Lo and behold, guess what happened? We all know the technology did

not work and it did not work for the very reasons he said.

Here we have an industry which is allowed to operate, to do drilling at a

depth in the ocean that cannot be dealt with in terms of getting at the issue if

we have an accident. We now have oil continually spewing out, thousands of

barrels a day spewing out on the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. So, the issue is

not just what caused the accident and therefore all the preventative questions

that we have around that, the issue is also the fact that we cannot deal with

the accident, the effects of the accident, the fact that the oil so far cannot

be stopped.

Mr. Speaker, that is the issue that, for me, is key. We are talking about

something that we go ahead and allow to be done even though we are not sure if

it can be taken care of if there were an accident.

Now, it is really interesting, there are hearings going on in the United

States right now, these are within the House of Representatives of the United

States, and since that hearing started yesterday we have learned that British

Petroleum, BP, one of the world's largest oil companies assured Congress and the

public that it would operate safely in deepwater and that a major oil spill was

next to impossible. That is a very interesting comment, Mr. Speaker, that BP

assured the United States, assured Congress and the public of that country that

a major oil spill was next to impossible so next impossible that it has

happened.

I mentioned this in the House yesterday and I will mention it again, it

reminds me of what happened when the Cougar helicopter went down. We learned for

the first time as the public and the regulator learned for the first time, on

all levels, all regulators learned for the first time that Sikorsky was

permitted by the monitoring agency in the United States known as FERC that

they were permitted to go ahead with the S-92 even though it did not have the

thirty minute run dry assurances. They were allowed to do it because they told

FERC that it was a remote possibility that it could ever happen, that that would

be an issue. Well, the remote possibility happened here in this Province a year

ago and we all know what that was about.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am very, very concerned that in dealing with the drilling

in the offshore, just like dealing with mining, just like dealing with a lot of

developments in the natural resource sector, that the industry and regulators,

all of us, have to ask ourselves: What is our attitude? Is our attitude that,

well, accidents are not really going to happen? Is our attitude, well, even if

it does we know how to take care of it? Is that what we are about? Because if

that is what we are about, Mr. Speaker, we are continually then running

unnecessary risks. It is one thing to run a risk that you really feel you have a

control over, so for example, yes, it is true that when I get in my car and

drive down the road, I am running a risk I might have an accident, but I have a

pretty good idea of what the record is, what the statistics are with regard to

how many people get into car accidents and I try to be extremely careful as a

driver. Yes, I run a risk. Yes, we run a risk when we get into a plane to go on

a flight and yes, fishing people who get in their boat going out on the water

run a risk. That is one set of risks, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we have had the accident in the Gulf of Mexico, now that we know we

cannot get quickly it might happen eventually, but we cannot quickly get a

cleanup of oil that is spewing out in that Gulf of Mexico and we cannot stop it

from spewing out, that accident now raises the bar when it comes to the risk of

drilling in the Orphan Basin at 2,600 metres down. We may have thought three

months ago, or a month ago, or even three weeks ago, that if there were risks in

drilling in the Orphan Basin, no accident could really happen. Number two, if an

accident actually happened, we probably all felt: well, sure we can deal with

that. Well, we know now we cannot. If they cannot deal with stopping the gushing

that is happening in the Gulf of Mexico at 1,500 metres, we definitely cannot

deal with it happening at 2,600 with today's technology. What are we doing

drilling at a depth where we do not have the technology to deal with a potential

accident, a potential blowout?

I heard it said here in this House this week comparing the drilling in the

Orphan Basin to Hibernia. Well, it is quite different looking at that production

platform which is gravity-based and which is at a much less depth. I have no

doubt, actually, that the kind of technology that is going on in the Gulf of

Mexico, what they tried, would probably work if we had a blowout with Hibernia,

but it is not going to work if we have a blowout with the Orphan Basin. I do not

want a blowout with the Orphan Basin, and I am not saying there would be a

blowout with the Orphan Basin, but we have to make sure that if a blowout

happens and that potential is there that we are going to be able to deal

with it, and we cannot deal with it.

Mr. Speaker, this is one main reason why we have to have a full study done of

what is going on, of how we deal with oil spills. It is absolutely essential

that we look at current oil spill prevention and response procedures. We have to

make sure that the preventions are in place. Now, we cannot have absolute

certainty about the preventions either, because one of the things also that has

come out in the hearings that are going on down in the United States, is that

things we thought were going to work did not work. For example, Transocean,

which is one of the world's largest operators of drilling rigs, says it has no

reason to believe that the rig's failsafe device, called a blowout preventer,

was not fully operational. However, we have also learned, and this has come out

in the hearing, we have learned from Cameron, the manufacturer of the blowout

preventer, that the device had a leak in a crucial hydraulic system and a

defectively configured ram.

Mr. Speaker, that really begs the question of how well the industry monitors

itself and manages things itself. That is why I have a real concern when we talk

about regulations - as the Minister of Natural Resources talked about today in

this House - that are not prescriptive but which are goal orientated. I have a

real concern that we, through that kind of regulating, could start losing yes,

I guess I will say - control over the industry. That those who are in charge of

environmental and safety issues will have such a nebulous, less prescriptive set

of regulations, that we may see more accidents happening because we may get the

industry also testing out new devices that maybe have not been tested accurately

or adequately.

When I look at what happened with Sikorsky that really gives me chills and

makes me say: Yes, we cannot leave it in their hands. The regulators have to be

completely on top. So, when I am told that the reason for changing our

regulations in Canada has been to allow more diversity, to allow the industry

more by having a goal oriented set of regulations, greater latitude in

testing, in using new technologies, I am sure that we could be prescriptive

while at the same time recognizing a way in which new technologies can be

brought into the industry. I have to say that I feel absolutely uncomfortable.

The other issue that has come up in the hearings in the United States, which

really bothers me, is the whole issue with regard to the pressure monitors on

the rig. Again, the industry talks about how these pressure monitors are so

excellent and the pressure monitors would really ensure that everything would be

done well. I will not go into the details, Mr. Speaker, because it is a bit

complicated. However, we do know that Transocean did know a very, very short

time before the accident happened that there was a pressure problem. That in

actual fact while they had a number of pressure tests that worked well, there

were a couple of pressure tests just some hours before the accident that went

seriously wrong. Yet, nobody did anything about it. They did not see it as being

serious. They did not see it as something that had to be dealt with.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much that has to be studied with regard to what

happened in the Gulf, and that has to be part of any review. Whether the review

is done by an individual consultant or done by a task force, the breadth of what

has to happen is the same in both the original resolution and the amendment.

It seems to me that the amount of work that has to be done and the breadth of

work that has to be done, listening specifically to what is being found out

about what happened in the Gulf of Mexico and looking at practice here in

Canada, practice around the world, that I really wonder if one person, one

consultant - and I do not know the breadth of support that the consultant would

have can do this work. It would seem to me that a task force, if you are going

to review, would be a better way to go.

When the Premier originally promised a review here in the House, he did not

indicate whether it would be a consultant or a group or whatever. It would seem

to me that a task force - you would have more minds working at the issue, you

would have more bodies working on the issue and you would have more resources

working on the issue. Yes, I want the work done but I want the work done as

comprehensively as possible. I think that is what the original motion was

getting at, that a task force could be more comprehensive because I think the

task force was only dealing with the present. I am concerned about the future as

well

MR. SPEAKER (Kelly): I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking

has expired.

MS MICHAEL: If I could just clue up, Mr. Speaker, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave to clue up.

MS MICHAEL: Just to clue up. So I guess just to say that, looking just at

the present situation, just looking the current situation, I think we do need a

review. Looking at the current situation I think a review would be better done

with the first proposal that was put to this House, which is by a task force

than by one person, one consultant.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Minister of Environment

and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to speak to this amendment. Before I

get into my notes, Mr. Speaker, I noticed when the Leader of the Opposition was

speaking, on two occasions she seemed very concerned that she had not heard from

the Minister of Environment on the issue happening off the coast of Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, it was only about a week or a week and a half ago in this House

when I was asked some questions on bottled water that I stood up and I talked

about the serious issues that are going on in the world, particularly in the

environment and particularly off the Gulf of Mexico.

To leave the impression, Mr. Speaker, that I, as Minister of Environment, am

not concerned about the situation off the coast of Louisiana is very unfair and

it is very untrue. We know thousands of people work in our offshore here off the

coast of the Grand Banks and many of those people are family or friends of

people in this House and of people outside this House. In fact, Mr. Speaker, my

own husband worked out of Louisiana, bringing people back and forth to the rigs

in Louisiana. So, to say that we are not concerned about the people or to

insinuate that I am not concerned about the people or the lives, the

environment, the wildlife, the sea animals, is very untrue.

To state that she did not hear from me, Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the

Leader of the Opposition: I did not hear one question in this House since that

spill happened over three weeks ago, not one question for me about the

jurisdiction that the Minister of Environment has over oil spills. As you know,

Mr. Speaker, if the oil reached land which we know through the research that

is done that this is a very unlikely incident, but should the oil reach land

that is when it becomes the jurisdiction of the Minister of Environment.

As I said, not one question did I get - and I have to ask the question: Why

did I not get a question? I think the reason is, as somebody said here the other

day, you should not ask a question in the House of Assembly unless you know the

answer. I think she knows the answer and it is because fourteen years when they

were in power, Mr. Speaker, when we had a very active oil industry offshore

here, there was not one policy, not one procedure, not one single person hired

to look at policies and procedures should, in the unfortunate situation, that

the oil reach land.

When we came in power in 2003, we realized this and we were absolutely

shocked and amazed that there had been no work done. We immediately acted in

2004. We commissioned a report called Towards a Newfoundland and Labrador Oil

Spill Waste Management Strategy known as the Cormorant report. We hired a person

to work on the policies. We hired a person to look at other jurisdictions, what

policies and procedures they have in place, so that if, God forbid, it should

come to shore, that we would have a plan in place. That is why I suggest I never

got one question. Fourteen years of a very active oil industry when they were in

power, and not one person hired, not one policy, not one plan in place should

this come to shore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: So, as I said, to state that we are not concerned, Mr.

Speaker, is totally unfair and not true.

Mr. Speaker, as I said we take the issue of the safety of our offshore

workers very seriously as do we take the issue of the environment very

seriously. When you talk about environment it takes in many things. Certainly,

from my perspective in the Department of Environment, we look at the wildlife.

We look at the sea animals, the whales, the seals. We look at the seabirds, the

fish, and sea turtles and so on. That is why environmental assessment is such an

important process in our decision making.

Environmental assessment process is all about risk. You hear the Leader of

the NDP talk about that we do not think anything would happen out there. It is

all about knowing about the risk, it is a calculated risk, and we know that it

is not that there isn't any risk at all, it is about looking at the risk, it is

about identifying the risk, it is about identifying the magnitude of the risk,

it is about the identifying mitigations for the risk, and then at the end of the

day, you base your decisions on those risks.

Environmental assessment is not only about looking at the biophysical, Mr.

Speaker, it is also about looking at the social and the economic impacts as

well. A lot of time and a lot of effort a lot of professionals spend a lot of

effort into these environmental assessments. So at the end of the day, the risk

is put before you, as are the benefits, and that is how we make decisions at the

end of the day, Mr. Speaker, weighing off the risk versus the benefits.

I speak of the environmental assessment process, and as we all know, when it

comes to the offshore, it is the jurisdiction of the federal government to do

the EA process, but it is no different than if we are doing an environmental

assessment process here on the provincial level, in terms of mining or forestry

or the protein plant that is currently under review right now on Incinerator

Road. It is still the same amount of time and energy and effort goes into these

environmental assessments, Mr. Speaker.

When you talk about risk, if somebody pulled open the document, which I did

to the White Rose environmental assessment, you will see that they even provide

the probabilities of an oil spill occurring, and they look at blowout and batch

spills, and the probabilities of each occurring. In fact, the environmental

assessment document for the White Rose states that the probability of a blowout

in greater than 150,000 or more barrels of oil is about 0.08 per cent, but the

document also goes on to say that this would even be less for the White Rose

project because there have been substantial improvements to the technologies and

procedures that are in place. Also, here in Canada it is very well known that we

have some of the most stringent regulatory requirements in place known in the

world, Mr. Speaker. While we do have the most stringent, the amendment that the

Minister of Natural Resources put forward today just goes to show that while we

have some of the best, if we can get better for the people of our Province, and

for the environment in our Province, then that is what we want. We do not want

to settle for anything less for the people working in our offshore and for the

environment around our offshore, Mr. Speaker.

So, when you talk about risk, the Leader of the NDP goes on and says that we

think everything is rosy and nothing is going to happen. This is documented

right in their environmental assessment. This is taken into account, so at the

end of the day you look at the risk, you look at the level of risk, you look at

whether a risk on sea birds could be significant or a risk on whales could be

negligible or something in between.

As I said, the environmental assessment looks at things like fish, fish

habitat. You look at where these animals, mammals, birds, whales, where they

live, how they interact in their environment and what the risk would be if there

was an oil spill. We refer to these in the environmental assessment. It is known

throughout the environmental assessment field that these are Valued Ecosystem

Components or VECs. The VECs are done based on public concern that has been

raised, or it could be done based on previous projects that had been done. It

could be looking at things related to social, cultural. It could be economic or

aesthetic values, or it could be something that might have come forward from the

scientific community, Mr. Speaker.

These environmental assessments, it is important to point out I know the

Minister of Natural Resources spoke to the role of the C-NLOPB the

environmental assessment is also reviewed by the C-NLOPB as well as other

relevant agencies within the provincial and federal governments.

Mr. Speaker, it is also important to point out from a safety and

environmental perspective that prior to authorizing any drilling or production

operation, a comprehensive safety review is conducted by the C-NLOPB. When the

installation occurs, an assessment is done by a third party certifying

authority.

In addition to this C-NLOPB process, Mr. Speaker, the proponent also has to

develop contingency plans to respond to any emergency that may be encountered

during production. These contingency plans have to outline all of the necessary

personnel, the equipment, the logistic support as well as the procedures to

respond in a safe, in a prompt and in a co-ordinated manner. There is a whole

list of contingency plans that need to be filed, but just some examples would

include: the offshore emergency response procedures; alert and emergency

response placements; the oil spill response plan; the ships oil pollution

emergency plan and so on. A lot of effort goes into this.

To continue on with that, Mr. Speaker, proponents of the offshore oil

projects also have to incorporate oil spill prevention into the design and the

operations of the project. All of these offshore systems and structures, the

procedures and programs, are all designed with the consideration of preventing

any loss of hydrocarbons. Things like VOPs, the equipment, the facility design,

all of those things are built for the very reason of preventing any loss of

hydrocarbons.

It is also important that they have routine maintenance and testing for all

aspects of the production program, and it is really important to have good

communications and sound marine practices, regular inspections and audits, which

we know that the C-NLOPB has three environmental safety officers who

continuously conduct audits and so on. Also, it is very important that the

planning, training and exercising to ensure that the appropriate spill response

capability is in place. There is a whole lot of work that goes into this, Mr.

Speaker, because at the end of the day, the safety of the people who work in the

offshore industry, and there are thousands, is first and foremost in our minds;

not only in this House, Mr. Speaker, not only on this side of the House but that

side of the House and certainly outside of the House. Also, just as important,

Mr. Speaker, is the environment.

As this House would know, Transport Canada is the lead agency responsible for

Canada's marine oil spill preparedness. Ships that transit Canadian waters are

required to have shipboard oil pollution emergency plans, as well as an

arrangement with a certified response organization that would respond to a

spill. There are four of these certified agencies which cover separate

geographic locations, but the one that is responsible for the oil response

services here is the ECRC, the Eastern Canadian Response Corporation.

The Eastern Canadian Response Corporation has sufficient equipment to respond

to oil spills in around the tune of 2,500 tons. We also have the Coast Guard

that has the capability of responding to an oil spill in around the area of

10,000 tons. So, Mr. Speaker, it sounds like I am going on about a lot of the

different contingency plans and emergency plans that are in place, what the

C-NLOPB does, what is involved in the environmental assessment but it is just to

demonstrate how much work goes into ensuring that while we know we cannot

eliminate the risk, a lot of work goes into ensuring that the risk is

significantly reduced.

Mr. Speaker, just a minute or two to speak to the Department of Environment

and our involvement in all we are doing with the offshore. We certainly follow

the federal EA process, that is for sure, and we continue to participate in

various committees involved in the offshore activity. The Department of

Environment is involved in the Oily Waste Working Group. This brings together

technical staff from the federal government and the four Atlantic Provinces. The

Department of Environment participates in the SmartBay project in Placentia Bay

and this helps monitor the ocean conditions. It is very important from the

perspective of protecting the ecosystem in the bay that has approximately $7

billion in products transported in and out of that bay annually.

Mr. Speaker, this SmartBay project in Placentia Bay, it is interesting to

note that this is the largest ocean observation project in Eastern Canada. It is

pretty significant. We are also involved in REET, that is the Regional

Environmental Emergencies Team. We also participate in the Canada-Newfoundland

and Labrador coastal ocean management committee. An awful lot of work going on,

and as I said, the entire reason that all of this work goes on between various

provincial jurisdictions, various federal jurisdictions, the C-NLOPB, the

federal government and so on, is to ensure the safety of these workers and the

environment.

I would just like to end on an interesting note, for two reasons. One, it is

interesting to let the people of the public know that there is somebody in the

Department of Environment who is leading assistance in the Gulf of Mexico. We

have an

interpretation technician who is based out of the Cape St. Mary's

Ecological Reserve and that person, Mr. Power, is very highly certified in the

area of seabird rescue. He has been contacted, or the department was contacted

by the Tri-State Bird Rescue and Research Centre in Louisiana and he is

currently down there now working for three weeks on assisting in the bird

rescue. I see this as an opportunity for him to bring back his expertise and

provide us with a document of what went on down there. Again, we can better

learn.

As I said, we have some of the best. We have some of the most stringent

regulatory requirements in the world when it comes to the offshore, but we

always strive and achieve to do better. Mr. Speaker, this independent review

would not only look at within Canada, within North America but also looking at

jurisdictions like Norway, the UK, looking at Australia, the Gulf of Mexico,

because we certainly want the best for our people here. If there is something

that comes out of this review that is pertinent and relevant to the offshore

here then we would certainly like to follow-up on that and be part of making the

regulations the best they are here in the Province.

I see my time has run out.

MR. SPEAKER: I remind the hon. member that her time for speaking has

expired.

MS JOHNSON: I would just like to conclude by saying

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JOHNSON: Under no uncertain terms, Mr. Speaker, do I - I want to leave

the assurance to the Leader of the Opposition that we are certainly concerned

over here. I certainly want to support the Minister of Natural Resources in her

amendment.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to have a few words with respect to the private

member's motion put forward by the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair today.

I will address my remarks to the actual private member's motion that she put

forward. I do not intend to address the amendment because the amendment is, as I

see it, simply an attempt where government again does not have the courage to

stand up and support what was requested. They also did not have the courage to

vote it down. So what do they do? They get wishy-washy again as we often see on

Private Members' Day and they turn around and water down what is there to

justify their own ends. So I do not intend to waste the precious time that I

have talking about something that is a feeble attempt to deal with a very

serious issue.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Environment, in all seriousness, she

talked about how much work our provincial Department of Environment is putting

into environmental assessments and so on and ensuring that we have the best

safety mechanisms and so on and processes in place that we can have. Well, I

hope we have a better job done when it comes to the regulations in our offshore

oil industry than we have seen in the teepee incinerator cases and in our

Abitibi environmental assessments. God forbid, if we find ourselves in the

offshore in the same kind of predicament. I do not want to be the one stood up

here six months or two years or five years out saying we told you so. That is

not going to work. That is not going to help once we have an environmental

catastrophe unfolding here.

I also find out, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Natural Resources was up it

is a funny thing how things change quickly. I remember being in this Province,

being here a couple of years ago, and this government had so little faith in the

C-NLOPB, at least