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 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 is owned by the federal Government of Canada and the Province of Newfoundland 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 a 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 between 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.

MR. SPEAKER: 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.

MR. SPEAKER: 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, and 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.

So 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 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 that 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 blow out 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 are 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. 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, 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 and 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; 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 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. Looking just at the present 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, Mr. Speaker. 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, Mr. Speaker. 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, and 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, Mr. Speaker.

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, Mr. Speaker, 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, Mr. Speaker: 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, that takes in many things. Certainly, from my perspective in the Department of Environment and Conservation, we look at the wildlife, we look at the sea animals, the whales, the seals. We look at the seabirds, the fish, sea turtles and so on, Mr. Speaker. 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 is not 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 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.

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, Mr. Speaker.

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.

It is important to point out – I know the Minister of Natural Resources spoke to the role of the C-NLOPB – that 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 so 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. So 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 and ships that transit Canadian waters are required to have ship board 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, Mr. Speaker, who 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 who 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 and all we are doing with the offshore. We certainly follow the federal EA process that is for sure and we certainly continue to participate in various commitments 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 Smart Bay 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 U.K., looking at Australia, the Gulf of Mexico, because we certainly want the best for our people here. If there 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: Just under no certain terms, Mr. Speaker, 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. 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 – 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 the person who was nominated to be the head of it and is today the head of it, Mr. Max Ruelokke – that they took court cases to keep him out of it. They did not want him there. They went to court. The Premier, in fact, said after the decision came down and said that Mr. Ruelokke should be the chair of the C-NLOPB, the Premier says: I do not know what side of the bed that judge got out of this morning. Now, that is the same Mr. Ruelokke, folks, heading up the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board who this minister all of a sudden today has all the faith in the world in. It is good to see the change. I guess he has been there long enough now to prove himself to her and to this government. So they have all kinds of faith in him now.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB is not the be-all and end-all. It is not good enough for this government to say that that is all we need. That is not going to cut it. The purpose of the private member’s motion today said we should have a task force as opposed to an independent review. Just so my friend Joe understands this, you have to ask yourself: What is the difference between a task force and an independent review? Maybe some of the Members of the House do not know the difference between them, but once you do maybe it might influence how you would consider this. We know how you are going to vote. I am not asking how it would consider your vote. We know what you are going to vote: you are going to tow the line like you are told. Mr. Speaker, I am just concerned and would like to see that they at least open their ears and listen to the difference in why the Member for Cartwright-L’Anse au Clair is suggesting a task force, as opposed to an independent review. Simple question.

A task force, of course, as implied, has more than one person. You can have all kinds of reviews. You can have an oversight committee. You can have a review, which we are doing here, by way of Captain Mark Turner, which was announced this morning. You can also have an inquiry, such as we have had, for example, in the helicopter crash with Justice Robert Wells. You can have a Royal Commission. You can have a task force. There are all kinds of different ways to investigate and check out what is happening in a certain facet of your society, or an industry within your society.

The government is satisfied to say, let’s do a review. One person, one head, that is sufficient. Now, there is nobody in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that is going to take exception to the stellar reputation, credibility of Captain Mark Turner. Let there be no mistake about that. He is a master mariner, he has years of experience. He is a lawyer, has a master’s degree in law. Very experienced, involved in the offshore - top shelf, no question about it.

All we are suggesting, though, is that maybe two heads are better than one, and maybe three heads are better than two. That is all that is being suggested by a task force. I do not think this is a case where too many cooks would spoil the broth. I think the more experience, the more views that we get in this most important review that is being undertaken, the better. One issue is the independence of it. Well, there are questions that have been raised whether the Captain can be independent or not – I do not think that is really an issue, personally.

My concern is about how much experience is brought to the task. We are not talking here about, and even though it is serious issues, we are not talking, for example, about looking at our highway traffic laws and saying, should we drive sixty kilometres or should we drive eighty kilometres – albeit, that is an important issue too. We are not talking about something like that. We are actually deciding, and checking out to see, number one, are the provisions that have in our offshore today, sufficient, how do we compare with everywhere else in the world, and if they are not, what can we do or should we do to make sure that we have the best practices?

Nobody is saying that Captain Turner is not going to do a good job. Nobody is suggesting that. All that is being suggested is that why not bring more brains to bear. Why not bring more experience to bear. Why would you not have a task force, for example, that involves someone from maybe the United States administration who is familiar with drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Why wouldn’t we have someone from the North Sea who have had their accidents, they also deal in the harsh North Atlantic climates? Why wouldn’t we have some of their expertise brought here? We are not an island on to ourselves when it comes to having the best practices. We may be an island on the Newfoundland portion but as a Province we are certainly not an island with Newfoundland and Labrador and our industry certainly does not function just here in a certain longitude and latitude. We are dealing in a world global environment today and this industry, I tell you one thing if there is a catastrophic incident in our offshore like is unfolding down in the Gulf of Mexico we will not be insular then. We will not be alone then, we will not be an island. There is going to be a lot more than our dear island that is impacted by this when it comes to fishing banks and fishing zones. So why wouldn’t you have the best advice that you can get? Nothing saying that Captain Turner could not be a member of the task force, nobody is saying that but why are we leaving out that? Why are we entrusting it all to one man? I am a firm believer that the more heads we bring to bear on this most important issue the better.

The government says no, we do not want to go there. Why wouldn’t you want to go there? Why would you not want to have the best possible advice that you can get? This is not any political issue. This is not about this is their policy or a Liberal policy or an NDP policy, this is about whoever runs our offshore whether you are a Chevron or a BP or an ExxonMobil, whoever, you must comply with these rules. We do not want those folks telling us what the rules ought to be because they are out extracting the oil and sometimes their interest is not the same as ours. They are into taking out the oil fast as they can, cheap as they can, sell it for the highest price they can. Yes, they are concerned, nobody is suggesting that they are not environmentally conscious, but they do not have the same interest and the same stake in it as we do as a Province. It is our shores. It is our fishery that is going to get destroyed if something happens.

So all we are suggesting here is, for example, is Captain Turner going to have public hearings? That is something a task force usually does. I never saw anything in the news this morning saying he was going to have public hearings. We going to allow the FFAWs of the world and anybody else in this Province, the environmentalists in this Province to have a say as to what they think should be or are we just going to have one man who goes around, takes six months, writes up a report to the government and says this is the review I did.

I do not know about anybody else, we might all consider ourselves pretty smart; but, I certainly would not put myself out there as being a total expert on anything and could not be told anything. I am sure Captain Turner does not either. It was not his choice to go this route; he just happened to be the person who the Premier asked to do it. I am sure if Captain Turner were asked, he would have no objection to having some help with this thing. I am sure he wants to do the best job that he can do. He wants to get the best advice that he can too.

That is what the issue is here. It is not about not wanting to do it; it is about how can it best be done. All the Leader of the Opposition in her private member’s motion is submitting is that the best way to do it is let us get the best advice from the best people and do it properly.

The judge, for example in the Cougar crash, an inquiry; Justice Wells, he just did not go off and do a review of what happened. He had public hearings, he let anybody who wanted to have a say and some input into this who was impacted; families who were impacted. He called the helicopter companies, he called the offshore oil companies; he made sure everybody became involved.

It was done under the light of day. That is the other thing; a review like this is not being done under the light of day and under the glare of people who have an interest and stakeholders in this. It is being done by an individual on his own timelines, however he wishes to do it and I have not heard anything about public hearings. Where does the public - interested, vested stakeholders - ever get an opportunity to have input into this review?

Maybe that is in the terms of reference and we have not heard it yet. I suggest that if we are going to have an independent review that does not have a public hearing component; we are off on a very shaky foundation to start with – a very shaky foundation. Then we have a case of not only do we entrust all of this information and this most important of our industries by the way. The offshore industry has surpassed the fishing industry in this Province when it comes to importance in terms of, I do not know if about jobs in numbers, but certainly in terms of the quality of jobs, the revenue that comes from it in terms of income and the revenues to this Province.

I am looking forward to seeing a sign of government to say let us do our independent review with one person. I hope this is not a case where the government, again, does not want the industry to be open and transparent. We have seen a lot out of this government when it comes to openness - I should say just the converse; we have seen a lot out of this government when it comes to secrecy. I certainly do not think we should have a situation where our offshore industry and what safeguards and regulations are appropriate should be kept in secret and somebody tells us about the report when it gets done.

By the way, we ought to all have concerns about the report itself. We had a commitment from this government, for example, that any report that was done would be looked at by the government for thirty days. I think it was released in thirty or sixty days, no questions asked. One need only review the history of this Province since 2003 and see if that commitment was kept. We have banged on this government day in and day out about their failure to keep that commitment.

Mr. Speaker, just to clue up here, I feel that we are not talking about what we need to do. We all know what we need to do, we need to have the best system at the end of the day that we can in our offshore. The only quibbling we have here is how best to do it. I suggest that to entrust it to one person only is not appropriate when we can use a taskforce that would allow for public hearings, allow for more than just one head involved and get the best expertise that we can throughout the world. I do not believe for a moment that this is a case where too many cooks spoil the broth. I think this is a case where the more heads we have the better.

I will be definitely voting against the government’s amendment. I think this is a shallow, knee-jerk reaction just to say that we announced the independent review this morning so we are not going to do anything but. That is pretty arrogant as well and we are used to that arrogance of this government for sure. There is no place for arrogance when we talk about having the best practise in our offshore oil industry.

Mr. Speaker, it is my view that we ought to have a taskforce and I look forward to seeing how the members here are going to stack up when it comes to listening to the overall piece, are they going to accept that what we have is good enough or are we going to say let’s do what we need to do.

It is time, as they say out in my district, to fish or cut bait. Let’s see, once and for all, if the members here have the gumption to vote for what is needed and not vote just for what they are told to vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly rise to conclude my comments on this motion today. I would like to thank all members of the House of Assembly who have contributed to the debate. However, Mr. Speaker, the contribution of the government with regard to its amendments was certainly unwarranted and unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, it is typical of motions that we have seen brought here by the government members. They are more fluffed than they are anything else. They do not call for any particular action and government has already announced an independent review and this motion asks for a task force – a task force to examine the environmental and safety regulations, Mr. Speaker, around the oil industry to ensure that there is independent observation being given to the industry, that we would see hopefully observers being placed on these ships, on these rigs, as a part of this process, and that it would be an ongoing process, Mr. Speaker, to ensure for the protection of the environment in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this government is taking a different approach. Their approach has been since day one, when they stood in this House with their carefree opinion, even though there was 5,000 barrels of oil a day being pumped into the Gulf of Mexico from rigs that were in water much more shallow than the rigs we have off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, and this oil was being pumped into the Gulf because their backup systems had failed, yet, Mr. Speaker, the government members opposite did not use this as a wake-up call. They did not feel there was a need to take further precautions and in fact, Mr. Speaker, they did nothing, only continue full steam ahead, allowing Chevron – without putting any additional safeguards in place, Mr. Speaker – to start drilling even 2,600 metres deeper off the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we are big supporters of the oil industry and we can see this from two sides: one is the contribution that the industry makes to the long-term economic potential of Newfoundland and Labrador; but also, Mr. Speaker, the fact that every development should be done in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. We feel that this situation in the Gulf of Mexico today has not only been a wake-up call to people who have continuously observed the industry, but also to ordinary people like ourselves across Newfoundland and Labrador who may not have turned their attention to what the potential disaster that exists off our shores could be.

What we are asking the government to do, Mr. Speaker, although they feel that nothing is necessary – the minister’s response in the media and in the House in the last couple of weeks was that everything is fine, that we do not need to do anything, all the safeguards are there in place. Certainly, I do not know what the minister knows about safeguards anymore than what the United States knows at this stage, who has already implemented a moratorium on future drilling until they have had an opportunity to review where the industry is going.

Mr. Speaker, the minister and the government does not have, obviously, the backbone today to stand and vote against a motion that was presented in this House calling for a task force, but they did not want to support it. They did not want to support it because they do not feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is necessary but they did not have the face to stand today and vote against it. So what did they do? They used their muscle power, Mr. Speaker, they used the span of their benches today to propose an amendment which will weaken the motion that we put there and really calls on the government to do absolutely nothing, any more than what they have already committed to. It says we support the government and we will not have to do nothing else. That is basically what the motion says, Mr. Speaker.

All of this is going on while not only do you have the Minister of Natural Resources out there trying to say to everybody in the public that everything is fine and there is nothing to worry about, well this was the same minister, Mr. Speaker, who put her face to every television set in this Province and told people there was nothing to worry about on Abitibi either. That all the safeguards were there and everything was looked at, well look how quickly that got turned around. Look how credible and how much security were in those comments, Mr. Speaker. So we are supposed to today in Newfoundland and Labrador, while we have an offshore industry going deeper into the North Atlantic, Mr. Speaker, we are supposed to believe that everything is fine and take the word of that same minister that everything is in place. Once again, Mr. Speaker, where is the Minister of Environment in this Province? Is she asleep at the switch all together? Here you have one of the largest environmental disasters that we have ever seen in the world, Mr. Speaker, it affects directly the industry of which we participate in, in Newfoundland and Labrador and we have yet to hear the Minister of Environment grunt on the issue. We have not even heard her grunt at this stage, Mr. Speaker, that is how committed and how up to speed that they are on the opposite side. You have one minister telling you everything is alright, you have another minister who does not open her mouth but she is responsible for the environment and you have a motion on the floor today asking the government to do something and, Mr. Speaker, they have not got the face to stand up and vote against it so they decide to change it and make sure that its action is nothing, requires you to do nothing once you leave here today.

Mr. Speaker, this is where we are going with all of this. You cannot ignore the voices of people that are out there and if we are going to be too broad in our breaches, Mr. Speaker, to start learning from what is happening in this industry everywhere else in the world, actually, Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the Miami Herald there was a press release, Mr. Speaker, where one of the governors yesterday announced a formation of a task force to deal with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This is what is happening everywhere else in the world.

The minister stands up here today and talks about how others are moving into the regulatory process. We are not talking about the regulatory process. No one is talking about that, Mr. Speaker, only the members opposite, only because they do not want to talk about the real issue at hand here. Well, we are not talking about that, but other people are talking about it, Mr. Speaker, and they feel that the C-NLOPB – and these are complaints that we have gotten from industry watchers in this Province. They feel that the role of the board is weak; they feel that it is stacked with industry insiders, and that there is no environmental expertise on this board. Mr. Speaker, based on that, they have legitimate concerns.

We are not saying that you need to throw out the C-NLOPB, you need to split it up or you need to do anything else. We are saying that as a government you have the autonomy to put in place whatever safeguards you want to override any of those other regulatory bodies. You have the authority and the autonomy, today, to set up this task force to go out there and to review all of these agreements, because I am going to tell you something, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you something. That is that over the last little while, when I have been reviewing all of the documentation related to this, I can tell you this is one of the most complex set of regulations across any industry that you could ever hope to find, I say to the minister who is sitting there laughing her head off today. Mr. Speaker, out of the documents that you can find, you are dealing with the marine transport, Mr. Speaker, you are dealing with Coast Guard, you are dealing with fisheries issues, you are dealing with the federal government, you are dealing with the oil companies. The government members, Mr. Speaker, might like to laugh at it, they might like to laugh at it, but it is some of the most complex sets of regulations across a streamline of government departments, federally and provincially, along with private sector companies, and, Mr. Speaker, negotiated agreements that interpret all the regulatory pieces around this industry.

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that, if there is one reason alone to have a task force, it would be try to focus some of those particular aspects. Mr. Speaker, this is a government, who when they have seen issues in this Province that have been important to them, they have launched task forces. They had a task force on adverse health impacts in the Province, Mr. Speaker. When the mill closed down out in Grand Falls-Windsor because they could not negotiate a deal with Abitibi, they did not have the ability, Mr. Speaker, to get a deal with anyone, and they could not negotiate a deal with Abitibi, so hundreds of people lost their jobs, the mill closed up, and what did they do? They put a task force in place.

What did they do out in Stephenville, Mr. Speaker? When they could not secure the mill for the people in Stephenville, and hundreds of jobs were gone on their watch because they failed to get an agreement, Mr. Speaker, and keep the operation going, what did they do? They went out and they put in a task force.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious today, that they do not want to listen to the concerns being expressed around this industry in the Province. It is quite evident, Mr. Speaker, that they do not want to listen to what people have to say, and the concerns being expressed.

We are not just talking about is the equipment or are the safety regulations in place to do an environmental clean up if we should have a spill; we are talking about prevention, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about preventing to the greatest extent possible, ensuring that there are no environmental repercussions of the oil industry in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, do you know why the government does not want to get too deep in this issue? The reason that they do not want to delve too far into it is because they are developers in the oil industry; they are owners, they are stakeholders, they are shareholders. Why are they going to take the conservation image? Maybe that is why we have not heard a peep from the Minister of Environment who gets a big cheque, Mr. Speaker, to monitor environmental issues in this Province and has not done her job on Abitibi and now is not doing her job on this issue because she has yet to speak on this issue in the Province and how it affects the environment.

Mr. Speaker, the government is stakeholders; they are developers and they are owners. Why are they going to be the people to propose conservation? That is not on, Mr. Speaker, because they have bought the equity shares in these companies. They are at the board tables with these companies, Mr. Speaker. They are a player now in the business. They are the developers so why should they have to listen to what the environmentalists have to say, what the industry observers have to say, Mr. Speaker. When something happens they will listen.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the count is something like 3,000 birds off the coast of Placentia alone washing up every year because of oil slicks in this Province. Mr. Speaker, who is looking at those issues I say to the members opposite. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, government does not want to get too far into this because if they did, one of their first moves today would not only be supporting a task force to start looking at these issues – because what a task force does, Mr. Speaker, is they continue with the monitoring work. They continue to follow up; they continue to do analysis of the industry; they continue to seek input from biologists, from fishermen, from tourism related industries, from the oil companies, from governments and collectively do the work that needs to be done.

That is the difference between what we are asking and what the government is agreeing to do, Mr. Speaker. It is unbelievable that they do not have the face today to stand on their own feet in this House and tell the people of the Province that they will not support a task force, and vote against it. . Instead they take the route, Mr. Speaker, through the back door of making an amendment, changing the whole motion to say at the end of the day we will do an independent review, we are accountable to no one, and we are responsible to no one. We will bring in one individual who is already being questioned because of his involvement, Mr. Speaker, with the technology related to liquidated gas in this Province. He has already, Mr. Speaker, been cast aspersions on because he himself is a developer.

I am not saying he is not capable because I know from reading his bio he is quite capable of doing the work that needs to be done – no argument there – but if you are going to have an independent review, it starts with ensuring that you do not – it would be like bringing David Suzuki in to do it, Mr. Speaker, when you bring in a developer to do it. How independent is that, I say to the members opposite? Maybe we should get David Suzuki to come in with him. We can have a co-review, Mr. Speaker. We will have an extreme environmentalist and we will have a developer. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the head of Chevron is not doing anything; we could get him in to do the independent review. Maybe that would work out just fine.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue – a very important issue – and one that impacts a lot of people in this Province. In fact, when I see what –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Order, please!

MS JONES: – is happening in the Gulf of Mexico today, Mr. Speaker, and I see those fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico today, waking up every day knowing that their livelihood may be gone forever, Mr. Speaker, to me that is reason enough that this government should do something substantial to ensure that the regulations and the protections of the environment are in place in this industry in the Province, Mr. Speaker.

When you look at, Mr. Speaker, where all the fish is off the Grand Banks in this Province, the entire industry in Newfoundland and Labrador dependent upon it, what would we be in this Province today if we were in the state that they are in, in the Gulf of Mexico?

I plead with the government to give some sight to conservation and environmental management and safety and do the right thing and put this task force in place to protect the people of the Province and the people in the fishing industry, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: The House is ready.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the amendment as put forward by the hon. Deputy Speaker carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall the resolution as amended carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye’.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay’.

The resolution as amended is carried.