Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2013

[Paul Barnes]

Yes, I would tend to agree.

A large part of the problem lies with the fact that the offshore is jointly regulated, certainly on the east coast and then in Canada, in the sense that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and the federal government, have legislative authority over the offshore. As a result, the regulations and legislation that govern the offshore have to be agreed upon by those three parties and passed in the respective legislatures of those entities. That often takes time. We find ourselves on the east coast with a lot of quite dated regulations, and even outdated regulations in some respects, for our industry.

So what industry has been doing in recent times is producing their own industry standards or industry recommended practice. We go over and above what's in regulations to try to ensure that the operators in industry adhere to our own set of standards such that our performance can be greatly improved. As an example, we recently produced a guideline on safe lifting practices. That is the lifting of equipment off supply vessels on to offshore installations. That's a guide for anyone who's working in the offshore, which they have to follow, or at least we suggest that they follow. It is an industry guide.

What the regulators do, because the regulations are a little outdated, is that they condition any work authorizations granted to the operators to state that the operator actually has to adhere to an industry recommended practice, or in this case an industry guide. That is a little different from what we see in most jurisdictions. The reason for it is because there are no government regulations associated with that activity.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you for that.

Justice Wells, you were mentioning the Arctic, and of course back in Whitehorse this morning the sun rose at 9:47 a.m. and it will be setting at 3:47 p.m. today, so you're quite right that night flights might have to occur in the Arctic.

You mentioned—and this may be more just something to pontificate on versus providing a real fixed answer—that scheduling flights could be a challenge. I put this to you, in the Arctic, in the north, it works both ways. In the daylight hours you have these extended days when you can fly. What we find is that it is easy to exceed a duty day for a pilot and it can come up really quickly, particularly in northern regions where you only have a couple of pilots and a couple of machines operating. Then you wrap that around to the nighttime and that duty day could shrink. It seems to me anyway, with my limited experience with this, that where you run into challenges putting pilots out into the field is where they've come up to their total allowable duty day, which can include non-flying hours like minutes on the clock where they're doing other related duties.

I know you've had some aversion to this for reasons of the weather, but would scheduling flights not stagger that duty day challenge that we face of having either limited flying periods or wide open flying periods where we have limited pilot and limited machine resources? Could you give us your thoughts on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Leef.

Justice Wells, could you just give a short answer please. His time is up.

Go ahead.

[Robert Wells]

I don't know where I am for the moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Just a short answer please.

[Robert Wells]

The point I think is that we know a helicopter can fly as well at night, for instance, as it can in the day, but if something goes wrong and you're down in the sea.... What's sea state six?

[Paul Barnes]

Six metre waves.

[Robert Wells]

It's six metre waves. That's 20 foot waves. If I were on the deck of an installation and there were 20 foot waves, I would be reluctant to get on a helicopter, especially if I thought something might go wrong, or there was fog, or whatever. That's the danger, I think. Scheduled flights are going unless they shouldn't go, whereas the more appealing concept to me is, “We'll look at the situation and if it's right, let's go.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Leef.

We go now to Mr. Cleary for up to five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the witnesses.

I echo what Mr. Regan had to say earlier about your testimony before this committee today, Mr. Wells.

In my riding of St. John's South—Mount Pearl, in eastern Newfoundland, we have a hell of a lot of offshore workers based, as well as in Jack's riding of St. John's East. I get calls from offshore workers and their families on a regular basis, meaning every single week. Their number one concern is safety, safety for the men and women who work offshore.

They are concerned about night flights, for example, because, as you said, they are more dangerous than day flights. Also, on our offshore we're talking about a distance each way of several hundred kilometres, which is a lot farther than the distances on the North Sea. There are a lot more rigs on the North Sea than off Newfoundland and Labrador.

The other concern raised by the families and people who work offshore is the need for an independent safety regulator, especially because, as Jack pointed out, it was a recommendation from the Ocean Ranger inquiry some 25 years ago that wasn't followed up.

I am getting to my question.

I got an answer back today to a question that I put on the order paper, one of the tools one has as a member of the House of Commons to get information. I had asked whether or not the federal government, the Conservative government, had assessed the cost of an independent safety regulator. The answer to that question was that no, they hadn't, which makes me wonder whether they took your recommendation for an independent safety regulator, the most important recommendation from your inquiry, seriously.

Workers and their families care about safety. I heard what you had to say about your recommendation for a national safety regulator and I also echo what Linda had to say, in that it makes a lot of sense. But again, my concern and perspective comes back to the workers and their families in my riding.

I have to ask you, with all due respect, how can you recommend a national safety regulator as workable for all of Canada, and in the absence of that—which is going to take time—not then say that an independent safety regulator would be the best option for off eastern Newfoundland and Labrador, and off eastern Nova Scotia?

[Robert Wells]

What's going through my mind is that the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. This would be, as I see it, a starting point. This is Canada's only offshore in the east—Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. There could be a start. As things grow, as the north is developed and possibly the gulf, who knows? The thing will grow. Expertise would be developed. That's how I see it.

But it would obviously be concentrated where the need is right now, and that is off Newfoundland, and to a lesser extent Nova Scotia because it's a smaller operation. That's how I would see it, as something that would grow into a fully national.... It would be national in its inception, but in practical terms, it would be where needed.

Isn't that what the U.K. and Norway do?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Let me cut to the chase, Mr. Wells. From the perspective of workers and their families off the east coast of Canada, should they be concerned about the fact that the federal government hasn't followed through on an independent safety regulator—again, your most important recommendation? Should they be satisfied with option B, as you put it, with the fallback?

[Robert Wells]

That's something I can't answer because I don't know what the reasoning is. This is the first time I have ever discussed this in—would I call this a public forum? I suppose it is. I really don't know what the thinking is or what the reasons are. Nobody's said anything to me, ever. I have not heard any public debate on the subject. I don't know if there has been or not.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

With all due respect, Mr. Wells, that is not much consolation for the workers and their families. All they hear about is an independent safety regulator. They hear your words echoing about the most important recommendation, a recommendation that was made 25 years ago, after the disaster on the Ocean Ranger, when that rig went down.

[Robert Wells]

The Ocean Ranger inquiry didn't recommend a separate safety regulator.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Wasn't that from the Ocean Ranger?

[Robert Wells]

No. The Ocean Ranger issue was that there should be a dedicated helicopter.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Cleary. Your time is up.

We go now to Mr. Zimmer for five minutes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I'd like to thank you both for your work on this.

I'm from British Columbia where we have oil and gas, but it's on the Prairies, so I don't have any ocean in my riding. But I do have an uncle who worked offshore most of his life. As a directional driller, he went back and forth by helicopter. He considered it a safe mode of transport and never was in an incident. He managed to make a good living and is happily retired today.

I'd like to refer to a statement you made, Mr. Wells, that operators want to be safe. I say this with a bit of qualification; I worked in the oil and gas industry a little bit, as a young guy working on pipelines. Back in the early 1980s, things had changed dramatically from what they were before. I think industry to this day has dramatically embraced safety as a good way to do business and also a good way to treat your employees. I saw a dramatic change in mindset in the oil patch to wanting to be safe, so doing what they have to do to be safe. For me it was dramatic. I've said that word three times already because it really was. It was really a big shift for the industry.

I want to give credit where it's due. I think CAPP does a good job of that and really works hard at it. More can obviously be done always, and that's what you strive toward.

I want you to explain to us—you've done this a little bit. There's a perception, which I think the opposition is trying to play here, that it's somehow unsafe now. I'd like you to explain the safety training regime for offshore workers a little bit, what it looks like today, and if you feel that it's safe.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Point of order, Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I take offence at the comment that the opposition in this committee is trying to play a game.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

No, that's not a point of order.

Go ahead, please, Mr. Zimmer.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's a point of privilege—