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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we received a briefing from the C-NLOPB regarding offshore drilling regulations. I must say, Mr. Speaker, instead of hearing the Minister of Natural Resources in the House of Assembly in the last few days going on about vegetable oil and the man in the moon, I can say it was somewhat refreshing.

During the briefing, Mr. Speaker, we were advised that once an oil company self-reports an oil spill under section 115 of the provincial accord act, the C-NLOPB is required to get written consent from the company before it can release the information to the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: I ask the minister, in the spirit of openness and transparency, will you commit to bringing forward amendments to this piece of legislation that will clearly outline any information related to spills can be reported by the C-NLOPB without permission from the companies?

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, section 115 and 119 of the Atlantic Accord act does talk about proprietary information and having to seek permission from the oil companies to release information. However, Mr. Speaker, the practice has been, and will continue to be, where it relates to environment and to safety, that all reports that are made to the board are posted on their Web site and made public.

Mr. Speaker, we currently have a review of the regulation on practices around oil spills taking place, prevention of oil spills and oil spill reaction, and that is certainly something we will take under consideration once those recommendations are made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The C-NLOPB is indicating that because of the legislation, every time that they reveal information to the public without having written consent, they are in violation of the act.

So I ask you today, Minister, why not make the amendments in the legislation to allow for a full open and full transparent process?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the practice has been to report all incidents with regard to human safety and to the environment. That practice will continue.

Once we have been through the review process, there will be a number of recommendations made without a doubt. Mr. Speaker, perhaps more than one legislative change is going to be required. That is something that will have to take place between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the federal government, Mr. Speaker. That is a piece of work that we will have to do together.

We have committed before, through the Premier and through myself, that whatever the recommendations are, whatever requirements on changes to legislation that might be required, Mr. Speaker, then we are committed to doing that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It needs to be noted that these companies are into a self-reporting process, and in addition to that, they have legislation that really can protect them from having this information released publicly. So there is no openness and transparency.

Mr. Speaker, we also asked the C-NLOPB why independent monitors have not been used as an option in the offshore area. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what their response to me was is that it would be an inconvenience to the companies because the capacity for accommodations does not exist on the rigs to be adding more personnel as observers or as monitors.

So I ask you today, Minister: Why does it appear that we are more concerned with inconveniencing the oil companies right now as opposed to ensuring full oversight on these drill rigs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I can only speak for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and our issue with regard with monitoring for oil spills has nothing to do with accommodation on platforms. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of people, dedicated people, with the C-NLOPB, who monitor what happens on the rigs in terms of environment and conservation. We have a series – just about every day when there is good flying weather, there is a plane in the air with trained oil spill spotters on board and a protocol established where oil spills are reported.

Mr. Speaker, science tells us that that is the most effective way to spot oil spills - from the air and not from stationary platforms.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are no independent monitors on the platforms. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the rationale that was given to us was only because they did not have the accommodations.

I ask the minister today if she is prepared, Mr. Speaker, to make a commitment to have independent monitors or observers on these platforms to ensure that there is greater oversight and more protection from an oil spill.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, these are very serious issues. When we see what is happening in the Gulf, that fact is brought home to us in a very, very strong way.

Mr. Speaker, I have attended two briefings - the same briefing twice from the C-NLOPB. The same briefing that I asked the C-NLOPB to provide to members of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. At no time did I hear in the briefings that the only reason we did not have independent monitors on platforms was because of accommodation shortages.

The board is satisfied with the level of monitoring that takes place by their employees on the board. Every day, as I said, where visibility is good there is a plane in the air monitoring what is happening offshore. They have a protocol that causes them to report to the board, Mr. Speaker, and that is the most effective way of monitoring.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister had her officials and her communications director sit in on our session, so maybe they can give you the information, Mr. Speaker, because the questions and the answers were very clear.

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps stating that air surveillance is the best place to be monitoring any detection of a spill offshore. No one is arguing with that, but what we have learned from the C-NLOPB is that there have been no records related to surveillance flights. They do not co-ordinate these surveillance flights, they do not keep records of these surveillance flights. In fact, much of the data comes from Coast Guard or Transport Canada who are really out there monitoring shipping lanes and fishing vessels and not mandatory rig platforms, I say to the minister.

So I ask the minister today: If air surveillance is the best way of monitoring, why does the C-NLOPB not have a mandatory program and recorded data available?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada, through the Coast Guard, employs or contracts with PAL to do oil spill monitoring in our offshore - over 100 flights a year on that contract. Transport Canada also uses its Dash 8 out of New Brunswick to do periodic patrols of the offshore. Mr. Speaker, DFO also has a contract with PAL on fishing surveillance on the offshore.

Now, Mr. Speaker, all of the people who are doing the monitoring for these agencies are trained in oil spill detection. There is a protocol established again with all of this monitoring that if there is any spills spotted it is reported to the Coast Guard who reports it to the C-NLOPB. Mr. Speaker, there is no need for an extra layer of surveillance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are well aware of the patrols that are happening on the ocean, Mr. Speaker, and the contracts that exist. The issue that we have, Mr. Speaker, is this: If air surveillance is the method, and the most convenient method or the most proven method, as the minister likes to state, Mr. Speaker, why is it that the C-NLOPB does not have a mandatory program for the oil rigs, and why is it that they are not collecting the data from these air surveillances? Why is it, Minister, that the only time that these aircraft are flying to rigs to look for spill detection is when the C-NLOPB themselves request that that be done? Very different!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, the whole area offshore is covered through all of these flights; the contracts through the Coast Guard, Mr. Speaker, and the contracts through PAL.

Mr. Speaker, PAL also does, once or twice a week, radar satellite imagery of our offshore which is also very effective in detecting oil spills. So, Mr. Speaker, they are only required to report to the C-NLOPB if they spot an oil spill. It is not required to report on a daily basis.

So, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the monitoring, the self-monitoring that goes on with the oil companies, the independent monitoring that goes on with the C-NLOPB, we also have this overfly through federal agencies and they report when there is anything to be reported.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the minister would hang her hat on all of this when we know for certain today that the C-NLOPB has no firm data on how many flights - how much air surveillance is done over those rigs on an annual basis, could not provide us with the information, Mr. Speaker, and assured us that there is no mandatory program.

Mr. Speaker, we have also raised the issue of establishing a task force which has so far been rejected by the minister, but members of the C-NLOPB did not raise any concerns related to this suggestion. They said it would have to be a political policy decision of government.

So I ask the minister today: To ensure the most open, accountable and proactive process of monitoring our offshore, will you commit to creating a task force that will work with and make recommendations concerning the offshore industry on a continuous basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of data first. Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB does have hard data, any data that is available on oil spills, which is the issue. Mr. Speaker, they do not need to know how many times, because they know that every day there is good visibility and good flying conditions there is a plane in the air going over our offshore, probably several, Mr. Speaker. They know that there is radar satellite imagery once to twice a week. What they need to know about is: Is there any detection of oil spills? That data is sent to them immediately, Mr. Speaker. So they do have that data which is most pertinent to the discussion at hand and what we are talking about in terms -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the other piece, the Premier committed, and in effect now is a complete review of our legislative and regulatory requirements for…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this week government lost yet another court case. This time the government lost an appeal against NAPE on the closure of thirteen winter maintenance depots. This is after government already lost the case twice, first in arbitration, and in the lower courts.

I ask the Minister of Treasury Board: Can the minister advise if he is going to appeal this decision yet again? If not, can you provide an estimate of what this is going to cost the people of this Province in terms of back wages to the employees, government legal fees, and the legal costs which the court has ordered that you must pay on behalf of NAPE for these various appeals?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Court of Appeal did release its decision on this issue which has affirmed the position of the government on two of the major issues that were before the courts. The court, first of all, did affirm the government’s ability as employer to reorganize and to seasonalize for the summer season its headquarters area. That was number one, and therefore overruled the decision of the arbitration board and the Trial Division.

Secondly, the court affirmed the government’s right as employer to layoff for lack of work, thereby again, overruling the decision of the arbitration board and the Trial Division. While the court affirmed the governments position with respect to the right to seasonalize or to close for the summer the depots and also to lay people off for lack of work, thereby protecting a very important management right of government as an employer, the government did recognize that in dismissing the employees, laying off the employees, there were certain employees whose seniority rights and whose recall rights, bumping rights were infringed and our government officials are getting together to review the decision to determine the next step.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is like the guy who was whistling past the graveyard. Now that you have been ruled against, you decide what you liked about it. Pretty good.

Mr. Speaker, this case is one of the largest arbitration decisions upheld by our courts in terms of dollar values. This latest legal debacle is going to cost anywhere from $6 million to $7 million to cover the five years of back pay to the workers which government improperly laid off in 2005. That amount does not include the government legal fees and the NAPE legal fees. The people of the Province are on the hook once again for all of these costs.

I ask the minister: Can you confirm that these figures are accurate, $6 million to $7 million for wages plus the court costs? I ask the minister, what are your plans to resolve this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this particular court case has reaffirmed the position of the government on two very important issues which are important to government in its role as an employer, and that was very important. Again, the Public Service Secretariat and Transportation and Works, and Justice will get together to determine which employees may have had their seniority rights infringed because of any improper layoffs and they will determine if any salary and benefits are owed to these people and then the Public Service Secretariat will get together with NAPE to make sure that the appropriate redress is provided.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Despite the spin being put forward by the minister, I will tell you what this court decision does make quite clear. Mr. Speaker, this case is entirely about government’s attempt to defeat the established principle of labour seniority through a short-sighted move to get through the back door what you cannot legally get through the front door.

I ask the minister: What steps will be taken by you, as President of Treasury Board, to ensure that these costly labour mistakes will never happen again?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, this case reaffirms the government’s right as employer to decide how it is going to organize its work and organize its workers. That is the important principle in this case and the government’s position in this has been upheld.

In carrying out the layoffs, however, the government did not follow the procedure that the court considered appropriate. Some people’s seniority rights and recall rights were affected and therefore Transportation and Works will quantify those claims and will work with the Public Service Secretariat who will work in turn with NAPE in order to ensure that the appropriate redress is provided for those particular employees that need to be compensated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I questioned the Minister of Fisheries yesterday on the MOU process and the concerns shared by many that it is not progressing fast enough to effectively address the challenges confronting the industry at present. For example, we have seen the turmoil created in the community of Jackson’s Arm when its shrimp plant abruptly closed last week.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is only a taste of what rural communities in this Province may see in months ahead, yet the government is refusing to offer any meaningful assistance at this time outside job creation projects.

So I ask the minister: Until the MOU comes together, are you prepared in the meantime to provide early retirement programs, worker adjustment programs, community investment funds, or whatever it is that people need so that they and their communities can weather this storm in their industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, the communities affected, we are very much engaged with, and we will find our way through this.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, where the problem arises. Anybody who would have read the Cashin report in 2005 under a section called management processing capacity, a statement is made by Mr. Richard Cashin, he cautioned against the wholesale increase in crab processing licence. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, down further he just says: With full knowledge of the mess that the industry was in, in 1996-1997 the provincial government, with the full knowledge of the mess, allocated seventeen licences. Then in 1998-2000 they allocated another three and then in 2001, Mr. Speaker, they issued another six – twenty-six additional licences.

No wonder we are in the mess that we are in, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, we can all read history.

So I ask the question again: Until the MOU comes together, are you prepared in the meantime to provide an early retirement program, a worker adjustment program –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DEAN: – or a community investment fund that would help the people –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to pose his question.

MR. DEAN: The question, Mr. Speaker, is: Until the MOU process comes together again, are you prepared in the meantime to provide an early retirement program, a worker adjustment program, or a community investment fund – whatever you want to call them – so that the people and communities can weather this storm in their industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, 2001 is not that long in history, and I would suggest that popular political decisions are not always the best ones to make in the long-term interests of the people of the Province. I can assure you of that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, as I have said, we have –

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, we have not at any time, as a government, failed the plant workers of the Province. We have stepped up for them in the past. We are talking to mayors, union representatives and communities at large, and Mr. Speaker, we will offer the supports that we can to get them through this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the MOU process has become nothing by a defence for government on these fishery failures, and in fact, many are fearful that MOU is the new phrase for closing out plants and leaving plant workers abandoned. Frankly, if this government was all serious about the MOU, the most recent Budget would have allocated money for this process, and the federal government, a key player in the industry, would be at the table.

So I ask the minister, if you are not prepared to provide the necessary investments required to stabilize this industry now, and the federal government is not prepared to step in, where does this leave the people and the communities who are facing devastation of their livelihood?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing is that this member should go out and say to the FFAW and the ASP that this MOU process is a waste of time. Is that what he is saying? That is what I am hearing, Mr. Speaker.

I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, if this MOU process does not work, it will not be because of the efforts that this government puts into it. We allocated $800,000 to engage the parties in this process. As I have said, the parties that can make the difference are at the table, and it will be in the best interests of the people of this Province, the fishery, and rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked questions with regard to the tender that was recently called to compact and redistribute the used tires being stored in Dunville. We also asked for details surrounding the proposal, that the minister mentioned would be coming on stream. Not surprisingly, Mr. Speaker, we did not receive an answer.

So I ask the minister, yet again: What is the nature of this proposal and when will we see a formal announcement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker, while we are trying to work our way through a solution for tires, and as the member opposite would know, this is not easy, as there were two failed attempts under their watch, we are trying to do measures in the interim to cut down on the costs, but also to cut down on the environmental benefits, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: This tender that was put out was to look at if baling would certainly work in the area. So we are just trying to get a feel for if it will lower the costs. We believe it will, but of course, we want to wait for that process to unfold to see if, in fact, that will happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BUTLER: I say, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, seven years and no watch. I would also go as far as to say that the tires that were collected under the former Administration probably have been burned for many months.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the Minister of Environment state in 2007, 2008, and yet again in 2009, and again this year that a plan for recycling tires is imminent. It would be nice to finally see some details.

The minister stated recently that our tires were now being shipped to Quebec to be burned and we were paying a shipping fee to get them there.

I ask the minister: What is the cost of shipping those tires to Quebec and will the proposal currently being considered by government address this issue as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can get the exact details for him on the cost for shipping to Quebec. Certainly, under their failed attempts in the past that is where the tires went as well, so I imagine it would be somewhere in line when you had to ship them to Quebec as well.

Mr. Speaker, shipping tires to Quebec is certainly, we know, the cheapest option for the tires.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: However, government committed to a made in Newfoundland and Labrador solution, Mr. Speaker, and we want to make sure that this proposal comes into place that it works for the long term. We do not want other failed attempts, so we are working our way through it. There are things that come up along the way with the proponents, but certainly we are working our way through that and we really hope for a successful project at the end of the day.

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, the C-NLOPB gave the Orphan Basin project the green light in 2006 for an environmental assessment known as the Screening Report. Previous to 2006 the environmental assessment rules included a comprehensive study which would have included public consultations. This practice changed in November 2005 when the federal government relaxed the environment assessment rules for offshore projects by eliminating the need for comprehensive studies at the exploratory drilling stage.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I plead to members once again. Members have asked their questions and provided with answers. The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask members for their co-operation in hearing the question put forth by the hon. member.

The hon. the Member for the District of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In hoping that the minister heard my preliminary comments, I now ask the Minister of Environment and Conservation: How can she be satisfied to have a less rigorous assessment done of the environment especially when dealing with totally new areas of exploration?

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, as I have stated before in this House, environmental assessment happens in our offshore under the auspices of the CEAA and the C-NLOPB. Mr. Speaker, there are two environmental assessments that take place, first around drilling. When oil is discovered, Mr. Speaker, there is another environmental assessment done before production takes place, and as part of all of that, Mr. Speaker, there are studies done on the possibility of oil spills and what might happen in that case. All of these documents are public and available for comment, and the public are included in the environmental assessment process.

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.

Yes, I know the documents and I know they are public because, Mr. Speaker, the original strategic and environmental assessment for the Orphan Basin exploratory drilling program which was released in November, 2003, and which is public, said that there was a lack of data on the environment. In the addendum to the assessment that was released in 2006 there were observations by qualified critics who said this lack of data on deepwater environment is a serious concern, and I have read the gaps in data that have been identified. We know very little about the environment two-point-six kilometres below the ocean surface as it pertains to fish, mammals and benthos.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is this government willing to allow exploration in the Orphan Basin before gaining a better understanding of the environmental impact on the various life forms?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are two types of environmental assessments that take place; one prior to drilling, Mr. Speaker, and a second one once oil is found in the basin.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the Orphan Basin EA there was a study done on the effect of an oil spill, a possible oil spill, Mr. Speaker. The model which was done as part of the environmental assessment by an arm’s-length agency that have expertise in oil spills, Mr. Speaker, they modelled the loss of 30,000 barrels of oil a day, every day for forty years, using the wind and wave data that we have for that period of time. Mr. Speaker, the findings of that modelling was none of that oil went outside of the basin area.

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 say to the minister, that I am concerned about the area in the basin area and we have very little understanding of what the damage would be in that area, and that has been identified in the studies that she has talked about. The data gaps are very significant.

Mr. Speaker, in 2007 government launched its Energy Plan with lots of hoopla and the first stated goal of its Energy Plan was environmental leadership to ensure the environment is improved and protected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Natural Resources, if it is leadership to continue to allow exploratory drilling for oil in the Orphan Basin when the environmental assessment admits that little is known about the environment in which they are drilling?

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, I do not accept the premise that she has put forward. There are stringent environmental studies done - pre-drilling and post-drilling - before production, Mr. Speaker. The environment is extremely important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are surrounded by the ocean. It has extreme value over a variety of ways to all of us, Mr. Speaker. When we see what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico it elicits a very strong response in all of us. Nobody who is involved in this business and on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, within the government, is going to take an action that would deliberately or through lack of intervention, pose an unreasonable risk to our offshore. We cannot guarantee no risk, Mr. Speaker, but we will do our best to prevent…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.