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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend we understand that President Obama has issued a moratorium on new drilling leases until there is a full and further environmental review. Yet, today, we are going deeper into the North Atlantic Ocean, drilling a well in 2,600 metres of water off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is one kilometre deeper than the British Petroleum well in the United States.

In light of the current environmental spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I ask the government today, if they have reviewed our own environmental protection safeguards for Chevron’s ultra deep water drilling project which just started?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have. Chevron released, in this past week, quite a considerable amount of information with regard to its drilling plans in the Orphan Basin. Mr. Speaker, we have confidence in the regulatory and legislative regime that we have in place with regard to offshore safety. We constantly look at those regulations. The Premier made a commitment here in the House of Assembly last week to do an independent review of the boards regulations and that process is currently unfolding, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said, Chevron is now drilling a well in 2,600 metres of water; 1,000 metres deeper than the British Petroleum in the Gulf of Mexico. We saw over the weekend the enormous difficulty in trying to stop a leak that far under water in the Gulf of Mexico.

I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Does he have any concerns about the drilling project off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador and the technology that is being used? I ask him: How can he give assurances to the people of the Province that this can be prevented and protected when we see what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there is always a risk associated when you go offshore, whether you go there in a boat to fish or you are drilling for oil. What we have to do, as best we can, is understand that risk and do everything we can to mitigate it. We understand that the Stena Carron, the oil rig that will be drilling the exploratory role in the Orphan Basin has at least three backup systems. We are required to have at least one; other than the drilling of a relief well, Mr. Speaker, one of three systems. I am happy to report that the Stena Carron has all three.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also would like to ask the minister, because there was a commitment last week for the independent review board, she indicated it again today.

I would ask the government, Mr. Speaker, when we will see the details and the framework around the independent review board and when we can see them start their work in this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the terms of reference have been developed and are now in the approval process. As well, there is a scoping exercise ongoing to find the appropriate individual or agency to do this piece of work. It is extremely important that we get it done in a timely way for our own information and knowledge, Mr. Speaker, and for that of the people of the Province. So it will be done as quickly as possibly can be done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Scientists in the Province who scrutinize both government and industry’s responses to oil spills charged that the monitoring of chronic oil pollution from offshore oil and gas activity is inadequate due to a lack of independent observers on platforms, due to lack of aerial surveillance and a lack of public disclosure of details of pollution events or even methods used to monitor these.

I ask the Premier today, Mr. Speaker: Why are the experts telling us that there is no credible and comprehensive program in place to monitor oil spills and pollution, yet your government giving people assurances of the Province that everything is fine?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, before any activity happens in our offshore there is a very comprehensive review that goes on, not only in terms of the C-NLOPB but also in terms of the Canadian Environmental Protection Agency. We have a number of departments, both federally and provincially, that are engaged. Operational plans are developed; they are reviewed by external agencies that have international reputations, Mr. Speaker, such as Lloyd’s of London - that certainly would be a name that we are all familiar with here in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has already undertaken to do an arm’s-length review of all of the safety procedures that are used in our offshore. We are not going to predict what the outcome of that is going to be. Up to now, Mr. Speaker, we are satisfied. We know that there are risks, there are always risks but it is an understood risk, and at this point in time we feel that all measures are in place to mitigate that risk.

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Justice for Children and Youth, a local non-profit advocacy group, has been advancing the causes of children in our Province for many years. They have devoted hours and hours of their own personal time trying to help children and families. They were instrumental in advocating for the establishment of the Child and Youth Advocate office and are now appalled by the fact that we have an Advocate who will not speak for the children.

I ask the minister: When will you recognize that it is the Advocate’s job to speak out on issues affecting our children and to ensure that this happens within this office?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, the act that sets up the Office of the Child and Youth Advocate is permissive legislation; it sets out the roles and jurisdictions of the Officer of the House. It is not prescript, it does not tell him how to do the job, it does not lay out any regulations with how often he should talk to the media or if he should talk to the media at all.

The Opposition is suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that by not talking to the media, he is not advocating for children. How they can make that rationalization is beyond me, Mr. Speaker. The Officer of the House has a job to do. In the latest report, for example, he did his investigation, he made his recommendations. The recommendations have been made, now it is up to the receiving party to act on the recommendations. There is nothing in the act that requires him to speak to anybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: I say to the minister, that being the case, maybe it should not be permissive, it should be mandatory. Maybe what we should be doing is telling him the specific details of his job.

Section 3 of the act, however, Mr. Speaker, requires that the Advocate protect and advance the rights of children and youth. The Child and Youth Advocate’s 2008-2011 own business plan states that the Advocate and staff engage in children and youth agencies, government departments and the general public in all discussions and consultations. Yet, this advocacy group has been trying for months to get a meeting with the current Child and Youth Advocate, but to date, they have not been successful.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, because the Advocate is not fulfilling the requirements of his job: If he is not meeting with the people who have first-hand knowledge of the issues, does he feel, as the minister, that this is an acceptable behaviour for the Child and Youth Advocate office?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to what the Advocate is doing in his job and who he talks to and who he does not and who he consults, that is not a question for the Minister of Justice to respond to. The Advocate has his role to play. The Opposition Leader, as I have mentioned, indicates that by not talking to certain people he is not doing his role. There is no logic in that reasoning, Mr. Speaker. The Advocate is fulfilling his role. We are very pleased with the job he has done in cleaning up the mess and the shambles that office was in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When you have a group like Justice for Children and Youth and they are unable to access the Child and Youth Advocate to talk about issues regarding children in this Province, I ask the minister, does he actually think this is acceptable behaviour for this office?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I know very little about the group that the hon. Leader of the Opposition just referred to. I assume that there are a lot of similar type organizations out there that want to talk to the Child and Youth Advocate, and I assume that he has talked to a lot of them. I am sure he will consult with all and sundry to get the information he needs and make his recommendation.

If there is one group who was left out of that, it is not for me to suggest that that Advocate should meet with that specific group, there may be any reasons in the world why he did not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, so far what we know is that we have a Child and Youth Advocate today in this Province who is temporary, who is not speaking to any politicians, who refuses to speak to the media, who will not speak to community groups who approach him, and he will not speak to the findings within his own reports. We also know, Mr. Speaker, he is being paid at $175 an hour by the government, and we know he is entitled to a provincial pension.

So I ask the government today: Is Mr. Rorke collecting his provincial pension while being employed as a temporary Advocate in this Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. F. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, given the situation we had in that office as of September of last year, this government had to make a decision to find somebody who was competent to fulfill that role in an acting capacity, to get that office back on stream, to re-establish morale, to advocate for youth, and to do all of the things that office is supposed to do.

We were very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, to get a person of such impeccable credentials as Judge Rorke. He is a retired judge - I assume he has a pension as a retired judge. Whether he is collecting it or not, I would not know, but if he is, he is certainly entitled to it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Over the weekend we heard that 1,200 workers at six OCI plants across the Province have handed their union a strike mandate. These workers are being asked for concessions relating to vacation pay, overtime and holidays. Now, Mr. Speaker, when Ocean Choice International bought these plants in 2007, when the government dismantled FPI, workers at that time agreed to take wage cuts for a short period of time.

Today, Mr. Speaker, these workers earn less than they did six years ago, and I ask the minister: Does he not agree that it is time that this company started to give back to these workers so that they make a decent wage? I ask him if his government has been intervening or having any discussions in this process between the company and the union.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition is right. During the FPI debate, there was a time when government acquired some funds to assist that transition.

Mr. Speaker, right at this particular time, both parties are into negotiations. That is what negotiations and contract talks are about, Mr. Speaker. We certainly hope that in spite of the strike mandate that was taken over the weekend, we hope that both sides can come to an agreement here and find a resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not only is Ocean Choice International after inheriting the assets of FPI under an agreement with the government, not only are they not paying their workers at a wage that is acceptable, but we understand that they are also not meeting the terms of their agreement that they signed by government for the five-year period between 2007 and 2011.

In 2007 at the Marystown plant, there were between 400 and 500 people working two shifts. Today the workforce is about 230 employees and they are down to one shift. I ask the minister: Why is OCI not living up to the terms of their agreement and what is government doing about this to ensure that they do not continue to downsize and jeopardize the livelihoods of the fish workers in that area?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most challenging times to be in the groundfish business, which exactly is what the OCI plant in Marystown is. It is in my district, Mr. Speaker, so I know all about the challenges that they are facing at that particular facility.

Mr. Speaker, they have rolled out a plan. Government has been in negotiations with them around the OCI – the shipping out of yellow tail. We met with the union there. We met with the company. We made an agreement in conjunction with the union at that particular site that we would assist in those measures. We certainly hope that they will have continued performance and improved number of workers in that plant, but there is no doubt about it, it is a challenging time to be in the groundfish industry and we can only hope for the best as a result.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We understand that this company, as I said, has not been paying their workers properly since they took over the plants in 2007. We have also been hearing from the municipality in the area that they have outstanding taxes over the past two years, and we are also seeing that they are not meeting the terms and conditions of their five-year agreement with government.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister today - this company has really inherited this entire enterprise. Many people’s lives depend upon the jobs in these particular plants and we have understood that there has been a proposal to government for funding from this company.

I ask the minister today if he can confirm if that is the case or not, and if so, can he tell me what that will do to stabilize the industry and provide benefits to the workers that are affected?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not aware of funding that the company has requested to assist with financial operations.

The OCI operations, as is other processors and harvesters across the Province, often submit applications to government under technology programs, Mr. Speaker, that will help reduce, let’s say, heating costs or fuel costs and costs of that nature. That company would not be any different than any other company or harvester within this particular Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, if that is what she is referring to there has been an application to that regard, but in terms of financial assistance around operations, no, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, government’s hand-picked consultant who completed a review of the air ambulance services in the Northern region of our Province has already proven that his work is questionable by submitting a poorly researched report. We also know that while he was in a leadership role with the health care system in James Bay that he had major issues with air ambulance, including an incident in 2009 that resulted in the death of an elderly patient.

I ask the minister: Were you aware of these past incidents and why would you hire an individual who has a questionable record of his own in providing effective air ambulance service?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we hired a consultant who had quite an extensive resume, who had worked in various places throughout the country in various capacities. This consultant reviewed, essentially, the numbers that related to flights in and out of Labrador, in and out of St. Anthony, and came to a conclusion at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, that the public could best be served by the placement of the air ambulance in Happy Valley-Goose Bay.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what the hon. member opposite is suggesting there, but it is a very serious allegation to be making, and I am hoping that he is simply not throwing this out for the sake of ruining another person’s reputation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, in this week’s Northern Pen, a reporter asked Mr. Drodge several questions about the report and his response was no comment. The reporter even asked: Do you have a comment about anything at all? His response was no, no comment; so again, another hand-picked consultant unwilling to answer questions about the reports.

I ask the minister: Is there a reason that this person is refusing to comment on a report with such ramifications in health care delivery in the Province, especially if he truly believes in his recommendations?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that we have looked at since the receipt of Mr. Drodge’s report is the actual implementation of the recommendations. So I have asked the supervisors of the provincial air ambulance program, being the medical director and also the paramedic in charge, to look at the recommendations to see if they can be implemented. At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, a report prepared by the Lab Grenfell employees accepts that the numbers put forward by Mr. Drodge are accurate, and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the eight recommendations agree with recommendations two to seven. The only disagreement that the report prepared by the Lab Grenfell employees has is with the placement of the air ambulance.

So, again, Mr. Speaker, there does not appear to be any dispute with the numbers put forward by Mr. Drodge, the recommendations put forward. The only dispute relates to where the ambulance should be.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, we have heard that before, and I beg to differ, but nevertheless, the reason Mr. Drodge refuses to speak basically is, in my opinion, his report is a farce.

The Opposition office required documents back in March related to Mr. Drodge’s research for his report, paid the fees being charged, and now government tells us we have to wait another two months to receive the information. Another example of this government breaking the access to information legislation in an attempt to hide the information.

I ask the minister: Why are you hiding this information, or are you afraid it will prove how weak this report really is?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I do not think there is anything being hidden in terms of the cost. It is my understanding, the cost of the report cost – we paid the consultant around $10,000. That is my understanding. That can be finalized by my department.

Mr. Speaker, what we have to look at here is a basic issue of, where can we place the air ambulance to best protect the people of this Province? We have had a number of incidents in Labrador which are very unfortunate, and which we are all aware of. The placement of the air ambulance in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Mr. Speaker, will mean now that all people in this Province will be within sixty minutes access to air ambulance, a situation that did not exist in Lab West while the air ambulance was in St. Anthony.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, what we looked at is, where are the greater number of people living? We know that the population of the Labrador region is at least twice that of the St. Anthony-Port au Choix region. Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, we have to look at the issue of the risk factor. There is a much greater risk factor in Labrador right now, not only in relation to population but in relation to heavy industrialization of the area. When you look at all of these factors, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations of Mr. Drodge are certainly sensible, that we are looking at implementing them, and we made significant Budget investments this year in…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest if the minister would follow some of the things that were in the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development’s statement earlier, that it might have helped in making his decision in the proper way.

Mr. Speaker, government has given notice to air ambulance employees that the service will be moved to Goose Bay on May 30. Obviously the minister is rushing this decision; his actions will create more problems in the system. One of the main recommendations of the report was that the medevac flight team would be there as well.

I ask the minister: Will medevac teams with the necessary flight medical specialities requirement be available to fly in Goose Bay on May 30?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I think the hon. member is aware that whether or not the air ambulance was placed in either St. Anthony or Happy Valley-Goose Bay, the second medical flight services team was announced in the Budget this year. There is a period of time that we have to advertise for these jobs, they are specialty jobs and there has to be a training period. So, Mr. Speaker, we are in that process of doing the hiring right now. It will be a while before people are in place, but I can assure the member opposite that we are looking at other alternatives to ensure that air ambulance is provided to all areas of this Province.

As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, when I was in Lab West, there was a recommendation by the doctors there that perhaps we should use Quebecair in certain obstetrical emergencies, and we have agreed to do that. What we are looking at now, Mr. Speaker, are other alternatives here to ensure that the best possible service is provided. We may have something to say on that in the next couple of days, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, the main recommendation that made this work was the medevac team. Now we realize that it will not be available in Goose Bay and all medical flights basically in that case – all flights will have to travel to St. John’s before responding to an emergency. Moving the plane to Goose Bay will now add an extra hour to the response time.

I ask the minister: How will this increased delay in the absence of the medical flight team - how will this increased delay help patients and improve the air medevac service in the Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In this Budget, this year, we announced a new plane which will be approximately $8 million. We also announced, Mr. Speaker, a second medical flight services team which would cost about $1.1 million annually. Obviously, we have to do the hiring, and until the announcement was made in the Budget we could not begin that process.

Mr. Speaker, there will be a period of time in which we will have to ensure that services are available and as I have indicated, I am currently in discussions right now with other groups to achieve that end, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, again, I met with the air ambulance personnel for the Province. We are going to be making changes to the way air ambulance services are delivered in this Province in terms of both dispatch and the availability. Mr. Speaker, what we have to do is look at how do we get our out-of-province residents out there in the best way possible. So, the changes cannot all take place overnight, Mr. Speaker, but they will take place and what we will have is a stronger air ambulance system as a result of this change.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. DEAN: Mr. Speaker, again, a very simple question to the minister. The fact that we are moving the aircraft without the medevac team means that that plane has to fly from Goose Bay to St. John’s for the team versus flying from St. Anthony to St. John’s.

My question is: Why would we rush the relocation of the plane before the medevac team is in place?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. KENNEDY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

One of the reasons that we have to make this move and to make it as quickly as possible, we have had a number of unfortunate incidents right now in St. Anthony, at least one incident where a pilot has refused to fly. So we have a situation where we have to stabilize this situation. We are going to move that plane to Happy Valley-Goose Bay as soon as possible. The report came down on March 22, Mr. Speaker, and we cannot allow for situations like this to arise in light of what is going on. So we are going to move that plane as soon as possible, it will be moved at the end of May.

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, it is very disappointing knowing the Premier’s commitment to an objective study of what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico, to then hear the Minister of Natural Resources say that there is no intention of stopping exploratory drilling in the Orphan Basin until government understands more about what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. Mr. Speaker, this thinking is counterintuitive. It would make more sense to stop drilling until we know what happened so that we can prevent such catastrophes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: Why government is not pressuring the C-NLOPB to stop the drilling in the Orphan Basin until we know the results of what is now an environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico?

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, as I said earlier, there is always a risk when you are operating offshore. What we need to know, as best we can, what is that risk and how can we best mitigate it? We have confidence in the plans that the C-NLOPB have put forward and the federal government under the Environmental Protection Act, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not going to shut down our offshore under these circumstances. We have a degree of security, as much as one can rely on, that the proper measures and countermeasures are in place. We will endeavour to learn more and do more as best practices evolve, but we do not see a rationale, at this point in time, for shutting down our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about risk - and I have heard her talk about the risk. If an accident occurs in the Orphan Basin – and I am talking about the Orphan Basin; we are talking about an exploratory drilling rig, not the whole of our offshore production. If we have an accident there similar to that in the Gulf of Mexico, we can expect crude oil to spew uninhibited into the North Atlantic for quite some time.

Mr. Speaker, today the minister is saying that the people in our Province are used to risks on the water. Mr. Speaker, this kind of an accident is not an acceptable risk. I ask: Can the government explain to the people of this Province why they are willing to take this risk?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP’s premise is faulty. Unless she fully understands the regulation and requirements that are in the United States, which I suspect she does not, and compares them to the regulation that we have here, Mr. Speaker, I do not think she can make that kind of a statement.

In The Globe and Mail this week, there was discussion about the requirements and the lack of requirements in the United States with regard to backup systems when a blowout prevention stack fails. Mr. Speaker, there are requirements – one of three – that are required here in this country. Mr. Speaker, the Stena Carron has all three of those capacities.

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, oil industry observers and analysts say the equipment needed to drill a relief well would not be available fast enough should there be a rupture in the Chevron well, which is 2,600 metres beneath the ocean. Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB say that until they understand more about what is happening, they do not see any reason to stop drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I have to question both the C-NLOPB and the provincial government’s reasoning. Why won’t they put a halt to this project until we know how to deal with incidents so far beneath the ocean? We have no idea.

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, her premise is faulty again that we do not have any idea. Indeed we do have ideas, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, a relief well is not the only fail-safe mechanism if a blowout prevention stack fails. There are at least three more that have been identified in this country - one of them is required for drilling offshore. The Stena Carron has all three capabilities on the rig, Mr. Speaker, plus it has the option of drilling a relief well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has been so quiet and attentive the Speaker is reluctant to move on.

The time allotted for questions and answers has expired.