Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2013

[Paul Barnes]

We've been operating under a draft set of regulations for over 10 years now and a lot of the committees and other constructs that the current bill talks about have already been in place. So the real benefit for our industry is that this legislation provides additional clarity as to which government organization or department has a regulatory role and oversight of occupational health and safety.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

Mr. Wells, I'd like to come back to you. One of the things you talk about in your report is how the offshore oil jurisdictions regulator is different in the amount of safety information it gives to the public. You talked about how exceptions may be required in cases of security and sensitive proprietary information, but that exceptions should be kept to a minimum. When they were in here the other day, Mr. Pinks and Mr. Tessier both talked about how this legislation now gives them the opportunity to be able to publish and make known to the public this information.

In your review of the bill, did you note that? What were your thoughts on it?

[Robert Wells]

I think it's a good thing because when Parliament speaks, it speaks and that's that: you have to do it.

Where did the offshore workers come from? They come from the public. It's not just the individual, but the individual's spouse, children, and parents. It's a whole lot of people who are involved. The more they know and are aware of the safety factors as well as the dangers, the better the individual can make a decision as to whether or not to work offshore.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you very much, Mr. Allen.

Mr. Trost, you have up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

One of the things our previous witnesses noted that was mentioned again today is the importance of involving the workers. In fact, if I remember correctly from the other day, it was one of the basic rights that was enshrined in the legislation and in practice.

To both gentlemen, could you comment on that? Why is it important, from your perspective, for the workers to be involved?

Since it's been noted that this bill codifies certain practices, how are the workers currently involved? Also, in your opinion, how will this legislation change, if at all, the day-to-day way this function works in involving the workers as being responsible for their own safety?

I guess I'll start with Mr. Barnes.

[Paul Barnes]

What the practice has been is that for each office or installation there's a committee called a joint occupational safety and health committee. They're referred to as the JOSH committees. On those committees, workers are represented. If there are any safety issues or safety concerns that workers or the operators want to bring forward, they get discussed in that committee format.

What industry has also been doing as various industry-recommended practices or standards are developed is seeking offshore workers' feedback, largely through the JOSH process. What I mean by this is that we may begin to draft some type of industry standard, and we would consult with JOSH committees to get worker feedback by having them look at various drafts and provide feedback to those who may be drafting it.

That's largely how it's been working in the past. With this new act, I think that practice will continue, but this act does allow for certainly a lot more worker input into established committees, committees that will be established on a going-forward basis. There's an advisory committee, for example, that will provide advice to ministers and to government about certain safety factors, and workers' participation on that committee will be, you know, enshrined. We view that as a positive thing.

I think I answered the second part of your question, but I'm not quite sure about the first part.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

That's okay. We're—

[Paul Barnes]

We're running out of time? I'll turn it over—

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

We'll pass it off now, because we're two and a half minutes into my time.

Go ahead, Mr. Justice Wells, with comments about involvement of workers, comments on the bill and also general comments, because, again, today we are listening to your expertise based upon your—

[Robert Wells]

Okay.

I've talked to a lot of workers in the course of the inquiry and since then. They come up to me in the supermarket or wherever I am and they talk about it. The literature out of the North Sea says this: that the transportation by helicopter is the most dangerous part of an offshore oil worker's work.

What we found when we did surveys of the workforce during the inquiry is not that people were terrified of going on the helicopter, but that a large percentage had a feeling of anxiety. Now, the more you involve workers, the more you explain, and the more they can hear pilots explain and hear briefings, the more they feel part of the process, just like any of us would feel.

When you feel you're part of a process, you're better able to handle things than when you feel you're not part of it, but a pawn in the game, as it were. That's why I think it's so important that workers have all the knowledge they can be given, and be a part of the decision and have influence, if not the actual decider, but at least influencing the decision-making process. I've talked to people who've said, “Look, I've been going offshore for eight or nine years and feel I'm lucky that I've had no incident in the air or on the ocean, and I think I'll choose another career now.”

You know, there is a certain anxiety among a given number of people, and it's not a small number of people. That's why I think we need worker involvement and input.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

As my time runs out, Mr. Chair, I'll say that I used to take the helicopter to work every day in my previous occupation. I don't know, but now I'm beginning to think it wasn't as safe a job as I used to think....

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Robert Wells]

Were you over the North Atlantic?

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

No, but I was over the Arctic Ocean.

[Robert Wells]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Trost.

We'll go now to Ms. Duncan.

Before you start, Ms. Duncan, I want to let you know that in fact the clerk did invite both chief safety officers, as you had suggested at the last meeting, and neither of them could come on short notice. So we won't have their expertise directly, but we had some through one of our witnesses last time.

Go ahead with your questions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, thanks, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to both of the witnesses.

As a lawyer, I want to commend your graciousness, Justice Wells. A number of us here are lawyers, and we've appeared before tribunals and before courts. One asks for a certain remedy, and then you say, in the alternative, “If you're not going to accept that, here's a second and third and fourth choice”, in deference to the court or the commissioner.

You have been gracious in not mentioning that the governments of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia endorsed your recommendation for independent authority. As noted in your well-written report, the workers asked for a separate, independent agency. In the wisdom of the federal government, they've decided not to have an independent agency. Australia decided to have an independent agency.

One of the things I would appreciate your comments on, Justice Wells, is this: the issue of accountability and the decision to grant these profound powers in decision-making to what the government always calls a stand-alone, hands-off agency. If, for example, serious issues arise or there are weaknesses in the legislation, we're told to go talk to the board, because they themselves are not accountable. I'm wondering if you could speak to that, because the perception is just as important.

As my colleague just said, maybe I shouldn't have taken those helicopter rides. We have workers taking two-hour helicopter rides over very dangerous seas. They want their families to know that there's not regulatory capture. The best way to not have regulatory capture is have an independent agency.

I'd appreciate your comment on that because, I don't know if you're aware, the Government of Canada has been convicted of four counts of violating federal occupational health and safety legislation. When a boiler blew up on the Hill, it was discovered that there were workers who were contractors and weren't certified. The government did not have in place even a safety plan and they didn't have training and certification of workers. Even when the government is responsible and directly liable, we're having problems getting them to take it seriously.

I am worried about that distancing and accountability. Do you think that there may be an issue about that since the Government of Canada will not be the entity?

And thank you for the comment about the Arctic. That shows great foresight. I have to say I fully endorse your idea of a national safety authority. We don't know what will happen on the west coast, but certainly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Arctic we should be thinking about where to begin the modelling and testing of an independent agency on the east coast. I'm interested in what you might have to say about accountability.

[Robert Wells]

The regulators have to be accountable. I don't want to knock the regulators, as they're good people.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes.

[Robert Wells]

They do what they feel is the best thing. I felt that an independent safety authority was the best choice, but life doesn't give us everything we ask for. The considerations that the federal government has, I don't really know. I'm not privy to their thinking. They're intelligent people also. There may be good reasons why right now they feel it's better to go with what we have, with the refinements of this bill and with the changes that have come about as a result of the inquiry.

I don't feel in any sense chagrined that option B has been adopted rather than option A. There may be good reasons for doing that at this time. It would be unwise of me to say they should have done it. Maybe it will come. It may take time. Maybe it will never come. But at least we have made improvements.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have one last question, if I have time.

Justice Wells, in the final observation in your report, on page 303, you state:

In a free and democratic society such as Canada, as much information as possible on all safety matters should be made public at all times.

The legislation deals with that, but it simply empowers the boards to release it. It does not require the boards to release it. Do you think that it has gone far enough?

You had said that it should be made public at all times, but that doesn't seem to be what the legislators have done.

[Robert Wells]

Unless there is some reason, such as proprietary information or something like that, which would prohibit it from being made public, I think you can't legislate certain.... Well, you can legislate whatever you wish.

However, it's unwise to legislate things that require a discretionary approach. You put the right people in place, like on an offshore petroleum board, and give them that discretion; it's like with judging and minimum sentences.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

You are reversing what your observation was then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Sorry, Ms. Duncan. We're actually out of time for your questioning.

We will now go to Mr. Leef, Mr. Cleary, and Mr. Zimmer, for five minutes each, starting with Mr. Leef.

Go ahead, please.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to both our guests.

Mr. Barnes, Justice Wells talked about this a bit, and I'd be interested in your perspective. You indicated that safety has hugely improved, and you talked about the need for a little about more concern, perhaps, where contractors move into a working environment and operators have less control over direct safety. You said that that's where some of the focus needs to be in terms of this improved regulation.

I'm curious about this in a more general sense. I'm from the Yukon Territories, as far away from the Atlantic as you can possibly get. I notice in industry that regulations and laws are sometimes very comprehensive and really drill down to what you absolutely have to do. Other times, they basically identify minimum standards. What I've seen a lot of times, particularly in the last dozen years, is that industry is starting to surpass the minimum standards of regulations that are in place. They're exceeding them. They're actually starting to set the bar, and then regulations and laws catch up to the standards and practices of industry.

Is that your impression as well? Do you have any comments on what I'm observing across the north in the way industry is dealing with occupational health and safety regulations?