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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, following this government’s logic on the Lower Churchill file is quite difficult. A couple of weeks ago, the Premier stated that he is going to pursue the Maritime route to transmit power and bypass Quebec. This weekend we learned that Nalcor is supporting a proposal from a private company to develop a 2,000 megawatt line from the Quebec-US border to New York City. If this company is successful, they plan to pre-sell access to this line.

I ask the Premier today: Is this Province willing to pre-buy space on this line without the transmission infrastructure in place to get our power to the Quebec-US border?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this Province is not prepared to enter into commitments unless it has actually something to go on. I think this is just the opposite of the question that the hon. member asked last week as to why we had not entered into certain contracts. We had not entered into them because at that point we did not have any power to sell. Now, it is Monday and she is now coming from the other side asking if we are prepared to enter into contracts even though we do not have space allocated.

This government is not going to put the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a precarious position. What we are going to do is proceed and we are going to look at all our options. We have not ruled out any of the options. The article that appeared on Nalcor over the weekend is an accurate article. We could look at actually buying space at some point in time when there are approvals in place to take power from the Quebec border. We could still even look at the possibility of building our own transmission line through Quebec. That is something which could have to be done. As well, of course, our preferred option is the Maritime route and we have stated that previously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The whole purpose of the question is because during the weekend, Mr. Ed Martin of Nalcor was quoted as saying that: "If it was a relationship where we were one of the players on the line and we had guaranteed access for a particular price, that would suit us fine." A few months ago in the House of Assembly the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Speaker, indicated that they were not prepared to make any commitment because they did not know which route that they would take and which way they would wheel their capacity. So, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the question today was to look for clarification.

Mr. Speaker, Hydro-Quebec has just signed a twenty-six year contract with the state of Vermont to supply power. The Premier referenced last week the MOU that he signed with Rhode Island in 2007 and his attempt to find a customer for Lower Churchill power. We now know that the MOU is dead, as Rhode Island has backed away from signing any agreements with the Province.

I ask the Premier: While everyone else is signing long-term agreements, what meaningful actions is this Province taking to secure potential customers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, when we took over the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, we found ourselves in a position where the previous government had not marketed our power properly in the rest of Canada and even the United States. When we first went to the governors meetings in the United States, it was Quebec power – the power that was coming out of the Upper Churchill was considered to be Quebec’s power. They were marketing it, they were selling it, they had generated it, and they had produced it. Newfoundland and Labrador did not even exist in the power markets in the Northeastern United States.

So, what we have done over the course of the last five years is nurture the relationship with the New England governors as well as with other provinces, Ontario and the Maritime provinces, to show that we will be a significant exporter. This government does not have a short-term vision of where it is going; it has a long-term vision. Our Energy Plan goes out to 2041 to the point when we repatriate the Upper Churchill power and we are working back from that.

So, we have a long-term perspective, we are building relationships, we are promoting the Province. As I said last week, I have spoken in New York, I have spoken in Calgary, I have spoken in Toronto, I have spoken in Ottawa. I will continue to promote this Province to the best of my ability anywhere in the world.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have is a minister who claims that we should not be buying capacity on a line. We have a corporation, Mr. Speaker, who is looking to invest with the private sector to buy capacity on a line that we have no route to get to at this stage, and, Mr. Speaker, in addition to that we have no secure customers while others are signing deals to provide power.

I ask the Premier this question. He stated that his preference was the Maritime option when questioned a couple of weeks ago. While that may be his preference, the work that remains to be done shows that this route is at least a decade or more away. One of the major challenges when using underwater cables to transmit electricity is that a significant quantity of power is lost. So using the Maritime route, there will be two instances that will require underwater transmission, across the Strait of Belle Isle and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

I ask the Premier: How much power will be lost using underwater transmission and what impact will that have on the feasibility of the project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can undertake to provide that information. I am not an engineer. I would not be able to give you an accurate number as to what the power loss is but I can tell you, obviously the Leader of Opposition is listening to her counterpart, the Liberal Premier of New Brunswick and/or his energy minister who has indicated that technical problems are the reasons why we would not do the underwater route. Well, since they made that statement, or since that statement was taken out of context, as they have indicated to us, they have since changed that and they have indicated that there are not significant technical problems with regard to underwater transmission. As a matter of fact, it is happening all over the world. There are lots of jurisdictions. We could cite all kinds of examples. I will provide the examples to the Leader of the Opposition, or any members of the Opposition, with respect to where this is taking place. There is some loss, some power loss but it is insignificant in the big scheme of things. This is the best, clean, green renewable energy project in North America and it will happen eventually.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know that the government has not completed the necessary work to move forward with the Maritime route. There are no environmental impact studies that have been filed to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and we know that process will take years.

I tell the Premier what I did talk to the Government of New Brunswick about, however, was the capacity on their lines to accept Lower Churchill power. They have confirmed, Mr. Speaker, that there is no capacity. They say that Newfoundland and Labrador, if approved, would be responsible for constructing new transmission lines across that province and paying a tariff to the people of New Brunswick.

I ask the Premier today: What will be the extra cost of constructing these transmission lines and what impact will that have on the feasibility of the Lower Churchill project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Well, now we understand completely why the Leader of the Opposition is so completely misinformed. She just indicated who she is relying on for information. She is relying on the Government of New Brunswick, who just recently backed away from a deal with Quebec whereby they would have given away their future. So that is where she is getting her information. So let’s start from that premise.

The Leader of the Opposition in New Brunswick was in last week to talk to me about the potential power projects, to talk about the use of New Brunswick as an energy hub for Atlantic Canada, for the Maritimes, for the Northeastern United States. It is interesting how a Conservative thinks as opposed to a Liberal, who decides they will just give it all away.

Having said that, we have also spoken to the Premier of New Brunswick, to the other premiers of the Atlantic Provinces who are looking at Atlantic co-operation to build a Maritime route, to build an energy hub throughout Atlantic Canada whereby the Province of New Brunswick would work with us. Now, we have already said whether it is in Quebec or whether it is in New Brunswick, whether it is in Nova Scotia, we have to upgrade. We will pay for upgrade. If we have to pay for rental, we will pay for rental. If we have to pay for new transmission -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - we will pay for new transmission. There is a co-operative attitude. Your divide and conquer attitude, whether it happens to be Quebec or New Brunswick, simply does not work.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to inform the Premier that you have to talk to someone in order to smoke the answers out of the government opposite because every day it is a different message. One week we are going the Maritime route, the next week we are going through Quebec. One week we are trying to buy capacity on a line to the United States, the next week we have no way to transport power. So, Mr. Speaker, there are more questions than there are ever answers, I would say to the Premier, and it is all right to talk to some people to find out what the real lay of the land is.

Mr. Speaker, once power is transmitted through Labrador and across The Strait of Belle Isle, down the Northern Peninsula, through the Long Range Mountains, across Western Newfoundland, across the Gulf of St. Lawrence, through Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick, we then have to go through the State of Maine.

I ask the Premier today: What discussions have you or Nalcor had with the State of Maine regarding transmission capacity? Will we have to build new transmission lines there as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite talks about taking power and taking it across Labrador and across the Gulf and down through Newfoundland, across the Gulf and through the Maritimes and down into the State of Maine. As if: Look, you know, this is just too much trouble. We really should not bother with this. What we should do is - she should go back to her previous position. We should just give this all away to Quebec. Which is exactly what her government and her Premier and previous governments have been prepared to do is give it to Quebec.

An article appeared in the Montreal Gazette just this weekend. Do you know what it is entitled? Let it go, Newfoundland. Let it go. That is what we should do. We should listen to the hon. member opposite and we should listen to the members of the Opposition. We should just let it go. We should give it all way.

In that particular article they also say, "Williams isn’t wrong on the facts." So everything that we laid out in Ottawa last week, every single fact is correct. They acknowledge that, but instead Quebec has this patronizingly colonial attitude: Let it go, Newfoundland and Labrador, give it all to us and we will take care of it. Well, over my dead body that is going to happen, I can tell you right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No one is talking about giving it to Quebec, but if you want to talk about giving it away, I would say that is your motto today. That is the government’s motto. Certainly, that is what we have seen with Abitibi, and we have seen it with a lot of contracts going to Quebec companies in recent days. The giveaway to Quebec is starting with government opposite, Mr. Speaker.

Let me ask the Premier what the plan is at this stage for the development of the Lower Churchill because we are no closer today than we were seven years ago, when he walked into office, on knowing what route that this project will take and what transmission ability that we have in order to develop.

So I ask the Premier today: What route is it going to be, and when is it that you are going to get down to work on that file?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Give it all away, so she talks about Abitibi. So, she is not in favour of what we did for the people of Central Newfoundland. She is not in favour of the fact that we took back and we saved their timber rights and their land rights, and their power assets – their very, very important power assets which happen to be related to this. She is not in favour of the fact that we then took that opportunity then to pay severance, which is unprecedented right across the country.

I have in front of me a letter which was written to me by, or written actually to – yes, it is to myself, and basically on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. March 16, 2010, from Joseph Kruger, the head of Kruger Paper in Corner Brook. Last line, last sentence: Again, I want to thank you and your government for saving the mill. That is what we do. We saved the mill and we saved the future for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The giveaway on Abitibi, Mr. Speaker, is letting Abitibi off the hook with hundreds of millions of dollars, and that is what this government did.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday of last week, a three-year-old child was nearly struck when a three-foot copper pipe fell from the ceiling in the blood collection area of the Janeway. It could have resulted in a very serious injury for that child, but fortunately and thankfully, it was not the case. Eastern Health stated that they had given very clear direction that the construction work was only supposed to be done at night when the area was unoccupied.

I ask the minister: Why were the work directives given by Eastern Health to this construction company not followed?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This was obviously a very serious incident and one that deserved and received immediate attention. The company was dealt with. The occupational health and safety issues are being investigated, and this kind of conduct on behalf of any company will not be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding, again from a review of the matter, that this matter is still be looking at. Thankfully, no one was hurt, but these are not the kind of situations that can be tolerated.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Health Science complex is one of the busiest buildings in our Province. Thousands of people go through that building every day and Eastern Health has a responsibility to ensure the safety of its patients, the public, and its employees in instances were work is being done in public intuitions.

I ask the minister: Who decides what protection barriers need to be used and why was no protection barriers used in this case?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O’BRIEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In regard to the Health Sciences or any other such facility in Newfoundland and Labrador there is extra precaution taken each and every day in regard to work being conducted within those facilities. In this case there, there was an oversight, as I understand it, from the manager who actually knew, or was supposed to have known, that the work was supposed to happen after hours, or at a time when that blood collection or whatever other procedures were not supposed to be happening.

Anyways, that did not happen and then company itself took corrective action very quickly in regard to that site, closed it down very, very quickly. Occupational Health and Safety did an investigative review on that. They always do in regard to any of those. Extra precautions are always put in place in regard to any facility in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the directives given to these companies need to be followed to ensure the health and safety of the public, patients and employees are protected. Had Eastern Health been monitoring the work that was being carried out by this company, they would have known that the contractor was not working as per the requirements for safety in the contract.

I ask the minister: When directives are given to these construction companies, who are responsible for ensuring that they are followed and who are responsible to ensure that the monitoring is done?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O’BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the directive itself and the work that is being done, it is the responsibility of both parties to make sure that all occupational health and safety standards and regulations are being adhered to. In this case, it just so happened that the company, on an oversight, started the work - that should not have happened. The company acted very, very fast. Occupational, Health and Safety acted very, very fast in regard to closing down that site.

In most cases - as a matter of fact, I have been the Minister of Government Services now for three years just about and the Minister Responsible for Occupational Health and Safety, there has been a lot of work in our facilities across Newfoundland and Labrador. Really, to my knowledge, this is the first incident in regard to any hospital in Newfoundland and Labrador of this sort.

So, the oversight is good, it is working well, but in this case it just so happened that it happened within the company and the company acted on it very, very quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has adopted a distinct law and order approach. More activities are being criminalized and those convicted are more likely to go to prison and for longer period of times.

This past weekend, the minister participated in meetings with his Atlantic counterparts where this matter and others were discussed.

I ask the minister: Can you report on what this new federal approach to crime will mean for corrections services in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice, I think, concurs generally with the actions taken by the federal government in terms of its tough on crime legislation, but at the same time we are cognizant of the fact that it is going to have an impact on the Province and all provinces. At our meetings on the weekend, that was certainly an issue of concern.

There was an action group established some time ago that did up some figures, that I do not have at my fingertips, on what the possible cost might be to the Atlantic Provinces in general. We are concerned with the fact that it will have a financial impact. We have made representations to the federal government and we will continue to do so but at the Atlantic ministers’ level and at the federal territorial ministers’ level when it occurs in the fall.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Despite the inevitable increase in the number of persons who will go to prison following these federal government changes in their policy, this government has taken no steps to accommodate or prepare for this increase in prisoners. Specifically, the Province has shelved the replacement for the existing penitentiary that is already widely acknowledged to be insufficient and decrepit.

In light of the minister’s meetings and in light of this clear, hard-lined federal policy, will the minister take steps to ensure now that the proper replacement facility is put in place here in this Province in terms of a penitentiary?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, in response to the constant criticism from the Opposition in regard to the delay of the pre-trial detention centre in Labrador, this department has constantly said that we are already engaged in that activity. We have started an internal review as to how to best get the best configuration out of correctional systems.

We have a number of correctional facilities in the Province. They all have difficulties. We are all well-aware of the problems with the HMP down by the lake. We are also, I think, acceptable to the fact by this time, because the federal government is not coming on board with respect to building a federal prison. We are looking at all the options we can, including any expansions or modifications or reconfigurations of our system so to get the best bang for our buck, so to speak, as to how we can deal with corrections in the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

We know that the feds have absolutely stated they are not building any new prisons in Canada in the foreseeable future. We know that this government committed and announced twice that they were going to build a pre-trial detention centre in Goose Bay, and have now scrapped it. So I will move on, minister, to another question because it is pretty obvious you have not done anything to pursue a new HMP.

Mr. Speaker, government has been quick to take credit for their report of two years ago called: Decades of Darkness. Yet, many of the recommendations in that report are still awaiting action after two years. One of those recommendations – and this ties in with my earlier questions about the prison here. One of the recommendations was that there would be a new Prisons Act to replace the existing one. However, we have seen absolutely no indication of any kind regarding consultations with either stakeholders or the general public.

I ask the minister: When can we expect to see these consultations take place and a new Prisons Act actually be introduced here in the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member is quite right in that that was one of the recommendations of Decades of Darkness. Mr. Speaker, the focus of the government after the Decades of Darkness report was on training and programming. To that end, Mr. Speaker, it has invested upwards of $6 million in terms of training of personnel, training of staff, developing of programs for inmates, so to make our correctional facilities a better place both for our inmates and our staff. Mr. Speaker, we have, as I said, invested $6 million in that.

With respect to the Prisons Act; the Prisons Act needs to be done. There is a lot of work going on as we speak in my department, in doing jurisdictional scans, getting best practices and so on. That act is being developed, and when it is ready, Mr. Speaker, it will be brought forward in due course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in September of 2008 the Department of Business announced an $8 million interest-free loan for the expansion of Terra Nova Shoes in the community of Harbour Grace. This past April the company announced that it was laying off sixty workers. Last week we see that the displaced workers were invited to attend sessions with the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and Service Canada to explore options, including EI, Canada Pensions and so on.

Can the minister confirm that this layoff now is indeed permanent and not temporary, as originally thought?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: I do not think anyone ever indicated those layoffs that were announced a short while ago were going to be a temporary nature. I think what was announced, the company indicated that they had changed their method of operation, they had developed a new plan forward and that those layoffs were going to be, in fact, permanent, and they reflected their new operation as they move forward.

So there was no mistaken notion, Mr. Speaker, that these layoffs were going to be of a temporary nature. Obviously, as the company continues to operate, as new business opportunities come forward, they will respond to those. If that creates an opportunity for expansion and growth, no doubt the workforce will reflect that growth.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, government’s response to this announcement was to ask Terra Nova Shoes for a revised business plan so that the department might review the terms of the loan.

Can the minister confirm that the plan was indeed reviewed? If a new plan was received from that particular company, if the terms of the loan were revised, and if so, what are the new terms?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: The member opposite is right, Mr. Speaker. We did indicate that we would be reviewing a new business plan and as a result of that discussion, and if necessary, we will be revising the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement we had in place when we advanced the money to them in the beginning and that process is still underway. We hope to have that concluded in a matter of weeks, I say, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

This $8 million to Terra Nova Shoes represents the largest single amount of money provided by the Department of Business to any one company, and is the major money, in fact, ever spent from the Business Attraction Fund since it was founded.

I ask the minister: What changes to the internal application and approval processes have been made within your department to ensure a greater level of certainty of business survival? Because it is quite obvious that the due diligence done here did not pan out and it looks like we could be on the hook for $8 million. So what, if any, changes have your government made and your department made in a terms of doing due diligence on companies who apply for business attraction funds in this Province, and subsidies?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, I think it is important to understand - and to take the member back to the time when that announcement was made.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, the minister of the day indicated very clearly that that company that currently operates in Harbour Grace was looking at – they had an operation in Ontario and an operation in Harbour Grace. When government considered the request before them, it had a circumstance where there were 150, 160 employees working in Harbour Grade at that time. The company was considering whether they would consolidate in Harbour Grace or consolidate in Ontario.

We looked at the business plan that they presented. Obviously, it is a long-standing viable company that we had a long-standing relationship with. They have been in the Province for a long time, very sound financially, and we created an opportunity for them to consolidate their operation in Harbour Grace rather than losing all 150 employees at that time, Mr. Speaker. So, the business case they had at that time looked at a consolidation. The international economy changed and market conditions changed, so we ended up seeing what we saw last year, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning we had a technical briefing from Chevron and we were delighted to have that briefing. They informed us that from their perspective they are doing everything they can to prevent a blow out from occurring in the Orphan Basin as happened in the Gulf of Mexico. However, Mr. Speaker, at this moment we do not know what the reasons are for the disaster in the Gulf. Potentially, there could have been technical issues that contributed to the blow out.

If such were the case, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: If this government would be willing to put a halt to the drilling in the Orphan Basin until an assessment could be made of the relevancy of any identified technical issues to the Lona-O55 drilling program?

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, we were pleased also that Chevron provided briefings to our caucus this morning, to the Opposition caucuses, and to the media. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the plans and the extra regulation that Chevron has put in place with regard to drilling in the Orphan Basin, as well as the extra scrutiny that has been overlaid now by the C-NLOPB.

Mr. Speaker, also, in addition that Chevron has representation on the team in the Gulf of Mexico who are dealing with the oil spill there. As well, they have representation on the Obama Administration’s response team to the Gulf of Mexico. Lessons being learned are being applied here, Mr. Speaker. All of that gives us a great sense of comfort with regard to drilling in the Orphan Basin.

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 heard those things as well in the briefing this morning, but we still have people expressing their concern about the risk of a blow out in the deep water and what would happen if there were a blow out. Many have concerns that the government would not put a stop to drilling in the Orphan Basin without full knowledge of why the blow out happened.

So, I ask the government: What would it take for the government to consider stopping action in the Orphan Basin? Would it be another blow out or are there technical difficulties that would force them to do it?

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, there are quite a number of regulations governing operations in our offshore. Mr. Speaker, if all of the safety measures and regulations were not being observed, were not available, requirements for safety were not available, then we would certainly agree to shutting down drilling in our offshore.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the C-NLOPB is concerned, all regulations are in force, being met. In terms of Chevron’s own code of practice, all the regulations are being met, Mr. Speaker, and if there were information that was starting to come out of the Gulf of Mexico to say that there was a systemic problem that had not been identified up to this point then that would be a reason for shutting it down as well, Mr. Speaker. None of those things have happened to date.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Premier offered to provide a list of the additional safety measures that were being employed by Chevron as a result of the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, and such a list was provided to us by the Department of Natural Resources two days after that. In this morning’s briefing with Chevron we were told that one of the measures noted as an additional one on the list from the Department of Natural Resources, a measure that states that Chevron will not use expandable liners as a part of their well casing design, was always a part of Chevron’s plan, that this was not an additional measure. As a matter of fact, they were quite emphatic in saying that the use of expandable liners was never a part of their plan.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Could we receive clarification about what else in the list of additional measures provided to us by the government is inaccurate and actually not an additional measure?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the worst accusation that could be made from the remarks now coming from the Leader of the NDP is that in my department sometimes we tend to be overzealous in terms of making sure that people got the correct information. Mr. Speaker, we spend a lot of time on this file. We recognize the concern that is being felt by the people of this Province, by the people of the country and of the world, Mr. Speaker. We, too, are horrified when we look at pictures of what is happening in the Gulf, and we will do everything we can to ensure that does not happen here, Mr. Speaker. The environment is important to every one of us. The sea is very important to us; it is a part of who we are.

Mr. Speaker, we take this situation very, very seriously and would not be offering comfort if we were not sincerely sure that is the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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