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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the first application for access to Quebec’s transmission system, which would guarantee access for the Lower Churchill, was denied by Régie the energy regulator in Quebec.

I ask the Premier today, because we are sure that government must have reviewed all the documents that passed down the result, and I ask: Will you table the English version of the ruling in the House of Assembly so that we may have the opportunity to read it ourselves?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to date, up to this point I have not received an English version yet, but I am certain that one was either available or will be made available. We relied, of course, on advice that we received in legal council who are doing the interpretation at this particular point in time, but absolutely no problem in providing that decision in English.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier, if he can explain what the technicality was that led to this dismissal and is it possible that there was any mistake on our part? I just want to clarify that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The technicality, Mr. Speaker, is quite simple. It goes back to the arrogance and the discriminatory practices of Quebec, if I may speak in general terms. It has obviously been reflected now in a decision by its regulatory authority, which is the Régie.

I have to say that the decision, although predictable due to the behaviour of Quebec over the years and their attitude and their constant direction in trying to stop us from completing the Lower Churchill and trying to inhibit us and prevent us, this decision took my breath away, on the basis that I was at least expecting that this jurisdiction might finally give us some fairness and some equity and some justice.

I find it really difficult to understand how they could have done us such a grave injustice back in the 1960s, which carries on to this very day, which has cost us billions and will cost us billions and billions of dollars, has prevented us from being a have Province for decades, to turn around then and to be so small to try and prevent us now proceeding with the Lower Churchill project.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate the Premier’s comments. I could have a few choice words myself, I guess, around the whole history with Quebec, but we are wondering what the technicality was that caused this to be thrown out or dismissed at this stage, and we ask the government if they could provide that information?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary memorandum legal opinion, which was provided to me, has four pages of problems and errors in that particular decision. This decision did not turn on a technicality. There is a technicality, however, that is present in the decision which just shows how blatantly incorrect and unjust this decision is. That is a requirement where the Régie has found that we should basically, technically, complete the entire process of negotiation of an open access agreement with Hydro-Quebec in a period of forty-five days.

Now it took us four years to get to this particular point, but the Régie has found that the forty-five day period is a period in which that should be negotiated otherwise the clock starts all over again and our application gets dismissed and gets dropped, but that was not the technicality upon which this application was denied. This application was denied on every single, reasonable, legitimate ground that we put forward and this will have to stand the test of scrutiny by people right across Canada, including the people in Ontario and the Maritimes who want this power and the people in the United States.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The government apparently in its statements this morning indicated that Quebec should be following the rules established by FERC.

I would ask the government today: Why are we wasting our time in dealing with Régie in Quebec when we feel that we are getting unfair treatment from that particular body and from Quebec and we feel that FERC is the best option? So why are you not pursuing that aggressively first?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, this is an extremely complex process and procedure. In order for us to gain access in Quebec, or to go through Quebec in order to provide power either to Quebec or to Ontario, to the Maritimes, or ultimately to the United States, we have to get access in Quebec. So there is an access application that has to happen in Quebec.

Over the last several years, and perhaps in the past, we have been following proper procedures and rules and policies and regulations. We have done everything by the book on the very best advice that money can buy and that we have internally and domestically within Nalcor and within the Department of Natural Resources. This is the proper procedure. This is the only procedure that we could follow. In fact, in order to complete this procedure we would actually have to appeal again to the Régie, then we would have to go to the Superior Court in Quebec, and then we would ultimately go to the Supreme Court of Canada. So we have to follow this particular procedure.

However, FERC comes into the picture - if I may just have a moment by way of explanation. FERC comes into the picture because when Quebec sells power in the United States they have to play by the FERC rules in the United States. So, therefore, there should be some harmony, there should be some reciprocity. The rules should be similar on both sides of the border.

What Quebec is doing to us, in our own country, is not playing by the rules under any circumstances. It is not following the rules that they are forced to follow in the United States of America. So, they are doing one thing on one side of the border and shafting Newfoundland and Labrador on the other side of the border.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the government: What impact will this decision right now have on the timelines of the Lower Churchill? We know that this application has been before Régie since 2006 and we understand there is a second application that has been there since 2007.

So we ask the government today: What impact will this have on the timelines of the development of that project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, due to the discriminatory practices that Quebec has exhibited over the years – not only in recent years, in past years – and what they have done to try and prevent us from developing the Lower Churchill and what they have done by not even considering any redress under the Upper Churchill, a long time ago we looked at alternate routes and we felt that in order to have any leverage with Quebec in any future negotiations or any leverage on the Lower Churchill, we had to look at an alternate route. That route has been known as the Maritime route – possibly, I guess, it probably should be known more correctly as the Atlantic route – but it has been known as the Maritime route.

When we first tabled that route and we put it forward, there was criticism, for example, in The Globe and Mail, there were columnists in The Globe and Mail who obviously were following direction from Hydro-Quebec that indicated that this was not possible, that this was not feasible, that underwater cables had not happened anywhere else in the world when there was ample present, but despite that controversy and despite that opposition, we proceeded and we have developed a Maritime route. We are looking at that very, very seriously. That will proceed, that will proceed on time. It will not be inhibited in any manner whatsoever by what has happened during this Régie ruling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, my next question for the Premier - and I do not know if I should duck before I ask it - but given the regulatory process and the unfavourable results, I guess, that we have received thus far through the process that we have taken: Is there any consideration being given to the political route and starting discussions with the Premier of Quebec?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, discussions were held just sort of on an informal basis a long time ago with the Premier of Quebec with regard to whether there was any opportunity, because what we are looking at doing is probably doing two routes: basically, the Maritime route which would take power down into the Maritimes to assist our Maritime neighbours and, of course, obviously to sell our product there; also, to go through Quebec and into Quebec and into Ontario and perhaps New Brunswick and on down to the States. That has been explored.

The behaviour that is being exhibited by Quebec does not lend itself to any kind of a negotiation whatsoever. Our door has always been open to any kind of a reasonable negotiation but only on terms that are good for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Quebec’s attitude on this has been: Look, this is really our power, this is really our project, this is really our river and that is really our land. Just drop that power off to us on our border, give it to us very, very cheap and then we will sell that on your behalf. We will make exorbitant profits but we will not give you any of that.

The last agreement which was going to be reached by the Grimes government back in 2002 or 2003 was an agreement that did just that. Quebec would have basically marketed it, they would have built it, they would have financed it, we would have sold power at – I cannot remember, it might have been 3 cents or 4 cents if I remember correctly, something absurd. We would have basically given it away and Quebec would have walked away with it again.

So, the actions and the behaviour that has been exhibited by Quebec do not lend itself to any type of reasonable negotiation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Earlier today the Premier announced that Captain Mark Turner had been chosen to conduct a review of the environmental issues and oil spill responses in our offshore industry. Captain Turner, as we all know, is very well respected and very knowledgeable about the oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, we do not question this individual’s qualifications to conduct a review; however, we do realize that he has been involved in the oil and gas industry development sector. There is a thought out there, Mr. Speaker, by people that see Captain Turner as a developer within the industry.

I ask the Premier today: Because of his involvement as a developer in this industry, will he be compromising an independent review? Will he be in a conflict of interest?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I did not take his c.v. with me to the House today - I wish I had it in front of me. Just from his own background and his credentials, he has been chosen because first of all he is a captain, he is a master mariner and he has his masters as well in admiralty law.

He has been involved on the environmental side and on the industry side with regard to the gas project, the LNG facility that was going to happen in Placentia Bay. He has been involved in the offshore oil and gas industry in this Province for, I would suggest to you, in excess of twenty-five years and perhaps longer.

He is an eminently qualified individual who I think, fortunately, brings it all to the table. He knows the sea, he knows the oil and gas industry, he knows the law. I cannot think of anyone better to give us a review and, in fact, an independent review of exactly how we should proceed. He is going to be looking at what we are doing now. He is going to be looking at what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico. He is going to be looking at best practices. He is going to be looking at our regulations. He is going to give us an honest, accurate, independent assessment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, while this review is one approach in evaluating the effectiveness of our regulations, it only provides a snapshot in time of our current system. It does not promote a continuous monitoring process.

I ask the Premier today: Are you and your government willing to consider a task force option that will consist of representatives from the various industry groups, whether that be environmentalists, the fishery, and the oil industry sector and so on, who could provide advice and recommendations on a continuous basis?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition’s question relates very specifically to the motion that we are going to debate here in the House this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some kind of a perception that we have total control over what happens in our offshore. This is a shared jurisdiction with the federal government. However, that does not stop us from reviewing procedures and practices. They are reviewed on a regular basis, but given the circumstances in the Gulf of Mexico, we feel it is important at this point in time to have that independent review. That is what we are going to undertake, that is what was announced this morning with Captain Turner, and we will have a fuller discussion of this whole issue as the day moves on.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have no problem with an independent review; however, we feel that government needs to take this a step further, and I do not buy into the argument that this should not be our responsibility.

I say to the minister today: Will you not consider implementing a task force, in addition to the independent review that you are going to do, to ensure that we have continuous follow up in this industry?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Premier just spoke to, and we announced this morning, we are going to do a complete independent review of the policies, procedures, legislation, best practices – not only in Newfoundland and Labrador, but in our country and internationally. Everything will be reviewed. If out of that review comes a recommendation that there should be some other layer on top of the many layers of surveillance and accountability that are already there, Mr. Speaker, then it is certainly something we will consider.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Reports in the national media today are suggesting that Canadian drilling regulations were relaxed last year. With the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, many of these issues are obviously just coming to light now.

I ask the Premier: Were you consulted or advised of these changes and what are the potential implications on the offshore in our Province?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the drilling and production regulations associated with our offshore drilling were, in fact, changed effective December 31, 2009. As I said in my last question, this is a shared jurisdiction between ourselves, Nova Scotia and with the federal government - two accord acts at work.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, amendments were made to the regulations. There are no differences or any relaxing of standards and benchmarks that have to be achieved. What happened with the amendment, we moved from prescriptive regulations to goal oriented regulations allowing new technologies, innovation, best practices to be implemented in a timely way instead of having to go through a rigorous process that involves at least two governments and takes an awful lot of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We all know that the C-NLOPB in this Province is somewhat responsible for the environmental and safety aspects of the offshore, but, Mr. Speaker, we also know that yesterday they issued a safety directive related to lifeboat safety. This review was in the works for three years coming out of an incident during the Coast Guard exercise in carbon monoxide poisoning going back to 2007.

I ask the Premier today: Because these safety regulations are only coming forward now from the C-NLOPB, how can we be guaranteed that any recommendations related to environmental and safety improvements in our oil industry are not delayed in the same manner and do not come to light for three years later?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition speaks precisely to the point that she asked the question about the last time she was on her feet. That is why there were amendments made to the drilling and production regulations to allow the industry to have more agility in responding to new technologies and best practices.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the C-NLOPB has a chief safety officer responsible for human safety and chief environmental officer who have responsibilities and have the authority to work autonomously from the board. So, in the event of a threat to human or environmental safety, they can act immediately, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to again ask the minister: If this organization is so swift to react, why has it taken them three years to issues the regulations that they did yesterday? How do we have guarantees that the same thing will not happen in the oil and gas industry?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is why the autonomy of the chief safety officer and the chief environmental officer is so important, it is why it is important to do appropriate amendments to allow industry to respond appropriately.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this is a shared jurisdiction. In terms of trying to do pieces of work, it can be very, very cumbersome. We always look to ways that we have accountability, that the highest standards are maintained, but how can we work to ensure that when best practices are established or changes are needed, that we can affect them in a timelier manner, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition Leader.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In response to questioning on Chevron’s drilling a record-breaking well in deepwater in the Orphan Basin, the minister stated that she is confident and satisfied that it is safe and prudent to continue with drilling in the Orphan Basin.

I ask the minister specifically to tell us today: What extra safety measures are normally implemented by Chevron above and beyond those used at Deepwater Horizon?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, drilling plans have to be put forward to the C-NLOPB. There is a level of scrutiny that takes place there and with other organizations, both within provincial jurisdiction as well as the federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, the equipment that is going to be used, including the rig, has to be certified by a third party, somebody like Lloyd’s of London or Det NorskeVeritas. There are quite a number of regulations, both from the C-NLOPB and from the federal government, that need to be followed.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said here a number of times in this House last week, for example, one backup system is required in the event of a BOP stack failure in this country. The Stena Carron has three, Mr. Speaker. There is redundancy not only once, but twice on this rig.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We know the plans were filed. What we do not know is what extra measures are being taken in our Province that was not taken in Deepwater Horizon.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, I ask the minister if there was any additional safety and pollution control changes that were made with Chevron in light of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

MS DUNDERDALE: (Inaudible) question.

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

MS JONES: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker.

The question was - I ask the minister: What additional safety and pollution control changes were made by Chevron in light of the Deepwater Horizon disaster?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Mr. Speaker, I would not be aware of what changes were made as a result of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. We do not know what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, Mr. Speaker, so it is a little early to start making changes.

Mr. Speaker, we have a high standard in this country. We know that we have backup systems on the Stena Carron that, apparently, were not available on the rig in the Gulf of Mexico. What we have to do is ensure that we have the highest of standards, that the risk is mitigated as much as can possibly be done, and then, Mr. Speaker, to move ahead and to do monitoring to ensure that those standards are adhered to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister obviously does not know if there were any extra safety measures that were planned. She does not know if there were any additional safety and pollution controls put in place. Yet, we are going nearly 3,000 metres deeper in the North Atlantic than they did at Deepwater Horizon.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister this question because the other day she stood in the House and she said we have three backup plans in case of a valve blowing. Well, Mr. Speaker, they had backup plans in the Gulf of Mexico as well and they all failed because of engineering or other aspects.

I ask the minister today: What confidence does she have in the backup systems that are here that they do not have in the drilling in the United States?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Leader of the Opposition to provide the information she is referring to. What backup systems? Were they the same backup systems that we have on the Stena Carron? According to The Globe and Mail, no. So we have, in terms of blowout prevention stack failure, Mr. Speaker, we have redundancy, at least three redundancies, while the country’s regulations – Canada’s regulations – only requires one. We have three on the Stena Carron plus the ability to drill a relief well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition knows that all of those three redundancies existed on the rig in the Gulf of Mexico, I invite her to stand and provide that information.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, in an independent review that was done, and a panel that was led by the late Dr. Leslie Harris, there was a recommendation that there be independent observers placed on these particular oil rigs.

I ask the minister: Why is there no independent observers on the rigs off the Coast of Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are three environmental officers who do regular checks from the platforms with regard to oil spills. Mr. Speaker, best practices in the industry worldwide will tell us that is not the best way of finding oil spills. The best way to find an oil spill, Mr. Speaker, is from aerial surveillance. The Canadian Coast Guard does regular runs over our platforms in the offshore as well as our shipping, they report and that really is the best source of information we could have with regard to oil spills.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Information has told us that those surveillances by helicopters are not done directly over the rigs, I say to the minister.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, in this Province today we have independent observers on fishing boats all over Newfoundland and Labrador simply because we all know that self reporting is the weakest form of reporting there is.

I ask you today, Minister: While you have the Stena Carron out there today drilling 2,600 metres deeper than any other well and the state of what is going on in the Gulf of Mexico, why do you not even take the minimum precaution of putting independent observers on board?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, self reporting is not the only mechanism that is at work. I just said that we had - the C-NLOPB has a chief conservation officer who does regular checks on installations. There are three environmental officers who do regular inspections on platforms in our offshore, and, Mr. Speaker, we have the Coast Guard doing regular surveillance runs over our offshore.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today the government announced the appointment of a consultant to review offshore oil spill safety practices. This action is a good first step. Mr. Speaker, the Premier said last week here in the House that he was open to the idea of setting up an independent body that would regulate safety and environmental practices in our offshore. The Premier also said he would need to check the Atlantic Accord and look at any constitutional issues that might be a barrier to setting up such a body. Mr. Speaker, since the regulatory body, C-NLOPB, is a federal-provincial body, it makes sense that a safety and environmental watchdog would be a federal-provincial one as well.

So I ask the Premier: Is he open to having discussions with the federal government about this issue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, discussions go on all the time between federal officials and provincial officials. In fact, if I remember correctly, discussions have gone on recently between the federal ministry and the provincial ministry with regard to these very issues. We have to be really careful with regard to the jurisdiction under the Atlantic Accord because if we start to open up jurisdictional issues we can open up the Accord, and that has always been a concern of this government and people who were involved in negotiating that accord in the beginning.

With regard to the point that was raised by the hon. member opposite last week when she indicated that – the terms of review or whatever it was, I did indicate at that particular point in time that we had already considered a review, and of course, we were in fact doing that. Of course now, as indicated previously, we have decided on Captain Mark Turner as being a person capable and independent and qualified, and eminently qualified in order to conduct that review.

With regard to ongoing dialogue between both governments, that actually happens, and we try to have a dialogue as much as possible between our Department of Natural Resources and the C-NLOPB.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS MICHAEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do thank the Premier for his answer, but I wonder if he could tell me if he will specifically look at this whole notion of a separate body to regulate environmental and safety issues as part of the ongoing dialogue?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the C-NLOPB is the chief regulator here in this Province, and we have had discussion with regard to whether or not certain responsibilities should be stripped away from the C-NLOPB because it has been described as economic benefits, royalties being set, that all of these responsibilities lie with the board. Mr. Speaker, none of those responsibilities lie with the board. None of them. The C-NLOPB is the regulator, and what we see happening in the rest of the world is they are moving their boards to where our board already is. They are separating royalties, economic benefits from the regulation, safety and environment, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

The reality is that everything is under the one umbrella. They recognized in Norway, they recognized in the UK and they recognized yesterday in the United States that having everything under the one umbrella does not work.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Deputy Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what we saw yesterday in the United States is that nation moving to the model that we already have. Mr. Speaker, royalties are set and collected by the provincial government. Mr. Speaker, industrial benefits regarding offshore projects is negotiated by the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, everything to do with the economic pieces, including the promotion of our offshore, is done by our provincial government. The only piece that the C-NLOPB does, it offers up lands for sale, but, Mr. Speaker, there is a sole criteria, there is no subjectivity required. When lands are put up for sale, there is one criteria; the highest bidder, and the highest bidder always wins the sale, Mr. Speaker.

So, what we see happening in the United States and happening in other parts of the world, is those countries moving towards the system we already have in place right here in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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