Natural Resources Committee on Dec. 4th, 2013

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

Mr. Barnes, please answer.

[Paul Barnes]

Everyone who's working offshore today has to have what's called basic survival training. It's a five-day course, and as I mentioned, every offshore worker has to do it. It involves, obviously, a classroom component, learning about different safety facets of working offshore.

It also contains a component where you are in a helicopter escape underwater trainer. It's a simulator where you simulate being in a helicopter that gets ditched in the water. You're in a unit that looks like a helicopter, it's put upside down in the water, and you're taught how to escape.

You're also brought out into the ocean, where you learn how to manoeuvre your body within a survival suit, which every offshore worker has to have when they go offshore. You're also taught how to board a lifeboat and disembark from a lifeboat. You're taught a number of other safety measures.

As I mentioned, this is a five-day course. You get a certificate, and after three years you have to go back and actually get a refresher. This is not a one-time thing in terms of training. You take a five-day course and after three years you have to do it again.

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

In relation to what the current bill is, I guess just to give confidence where it's due, will this bill enhance the ability for you to provide a safe work environment? For me, I know it's safe already, but will it provide a safer environment? Will this bill provide a safer environment for workers?

[Paul Barnes]

I think the bill provides, from our perspective, just additional clarity with respect to who has regulatory oversight over occupational health and safety. Another aspect involves a lot more worker input.

Those two aspects alone I think will provide some clarity, provide some indication as to what workers feel about their safety and their work environment, and provide that feedback to those who are in charge.

In that respect, yes, it will likely increase safety, but to be honest, I think only marginally, because there have been a lot of safety improvements that exist offshore and that have existed for a number of years. This bill doesn't really change that.

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

I'll just finish with a small statement.

I mentioned my uncle. My cousin works as an directional driller on land. My uncle had just as many options open to him. He could have chosen to work on land, but he chose to work offshore and felt safe.

I think predominantly that's the case. Most of these workers have other options. To give credit where it's due, I think the industry is very safe. Credit is due to your organizations for taking it seriously.

Thanks for presenting today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Mr. Zimmer.

We go now to Mr. Julian for up to five minutes. Go ahead, please.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Mr. Barnes and Justice Wells for being here today.

Our goal is to make sure that this legislation is as good as possible. We want to make sure that no one dies in offshore work, that no family mourns. We've been endeavouring to ask you questions to ensure that we can get the kind of legislation that reflects really the utmost standards of safety.

Since we've had, and will have, witnesses who have raised the issue around your recommendation, Justice Wells, about the independent safety regulator, it's obvious that it's a key question for us. I wanted to come back to that, because I know my colleagues have been asking you.

It appears to me that when we talk about the most recent incident, the near crash, some might say that 38 feet is still 38 feet. But given the speed that any aircraft travels at, 38 feet is a very, very small margin of safety. It's fortunate that it didn't result in deaths.

The issue that Mr. Harris raised, around how that was then reported through the C-NLOPB, is an important one. We've also raised issues around the run-dry capability that the Transportation Safety Board has made clear recommendations on but which hasn't been enacted yet. The idea of having a 30-minute run-dry capability is something that hasn't been put into effect. We've asked some questions on that, and we haven't received a clear response on why that has not been put into effect.

It seems there are two discussions here, that of course we all support the bill, but at the same time, we have to make sure that we're talking about the utmost level of safety.

I guess I would come back to this issue of the independent safety regulator, since there seems to be some concern about whether the decisions that are being made are actually delivering the top level of safety possible.

Do you not think that your recommendation is still applicable today, that having in place an independent safety regulator allows us to ensure that there aren't other considerations that are being brought to bear when we talk about the safety of the workers in the offshore?

[Robert Wells]

Well, if I were writing the report today, I'd write the same thing. I believe that's the way to go. But when you consider something like the run-dry, you have to bear in mind that aircraft are certified by the United States, Canadian, and European regulators. If, say, Bombardier here in Canada produces an aircraft and Canada certifies it, and the U.S. and Europe accepts it.... For instance, the S-92 hasn't got the 30-minute run-dry. Now the S-61.... Do you know what S-61 and S-92 mean?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Somewhat.

[Robert Wells]

The S stands for Sikorsky, of course, but the S-61 was a real workhorse of the industry. It began development in 1961. It pretty well takes 10 years for one of these modern heavy-lift helicopters to be developed. It had the 30-minute run-dry. For some reason, the S-92 didn't, but Sikorsky and the FAA knew that. But Sikorsky went to the FAA and said, “Look, the possibility of something going wrong and losing oil is so remote that you should certify it,” and the FAA considered it all and said, “Okay, yes we will.” Now that meant that the aircraft was certified for Canada as well as for Europe, so that an independent safety regulator wouldn't be able to change that. These are agreements that Canada is a part of with the U.S. and Europe for certifying aircraft. If the U.S. certifies aircraft, that's where most of them are manufactured, and that's it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Thank you for that answer. I believe Mr. Cleary had a quick question as well.

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

Thank you, Peter. I have just one quick question.

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board are both responsible for safety. They are responsible for the environmental impact and industry regulation. Now, some people, critics—and I know you've addressed this in your report as well—say that creates a potential or perceived conflict. My question is this. Wouldn't an independent safety regulator address that conflict where Bill C-5, this Offshore Health and Safety Act, would not?

[Robert Wells]

It could. I think this occupational health and safety act is a good act and I would like to see it passed; it would benefit everybody. But it doesn't necessarily address the questions that even some of the present regulators may have to address, or an offshore safety regulator. It's not a complete panacea for everything. It deals with occupational health and safety, but not every issue that may come before a regulator. But Mr. Barnes is quite right that regulators, as industry itself, have the option of always exceeding governmental standards. That happens; there's no question about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Julian and Mr. Cleary.

We'll go now to Mr. Trost, followed by Ms. Crockatt. Assuming that you use all of the time, we will suspend the meeting at that time to go into other business.

Go ahead please, Mr. Trost.

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

Well, Mr. Chair, I probably won't because I basically have one short question for Mr. Barnes and, of course, if Mr. Wells wants to comment, feel free to do so.

One of the things other witnesses have talked about—and I think someone mentioned it here today—was the concern of subcontractors that it was important to get the hierarchy right. Mr. Barnes, how does this legislation give you more tools to deal with subcontractors because, as has been observed here, it's probably not going to be the big boys who are not going to have their procedures and safety regulations, etc., in line. You will deal with a lot of subcontractors out in the field, not all of whom are members of CAPP. So can you provide a bit of comment on how this lets you work with subcontractors, temporary contractors, things of that nature? What's current practice and how will this bill help? Are there any recommendations you have that haven't been covered yet?

[Paul Barnes]

I don't think the bill will help in that regard. What industry has been doing lately when it hires contractors is to their contracts the requirement that they have to adhere to certain safety performance metrics and safety programs in general. So we hire contractors and make sure that they follow a certain safety standard. Recently, a lot of the producers have been doing their own independent audits of their contractors to ensure adherence not only to the contract but to the stipulated safety protocols as well.

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

I understood one of the previous witnesses the other day to say that this allows the main contractors, the main companies, to have more legal teeth, and that good industry practice now follows.

Do you feel that you already have sufficient legal teeth through the contracts and the safety audits that you're using with your subcontractors?

[Paul Barnes]

Yes.

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

That's it for my questions.

Would Mr. Wells like to comment?

[Robert Wells]

No, I think Mr. Barnes is the best person to deal with that.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We'll go now to Ms. Crockatt.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Barnes, I should have said at the outset that I'm from Calgary, the home of CAPP, so I'm glad to see you here answering questions. I thought I'd ask you a little bit about how this is going to translate on the ground. No one, of course, wants to see an accident—not the government, not industry, not the people who are working there.

Can you tell me, in your estimation, how Bill C-5 will translate on the ground for people who are actually working in the industry?

[Paul Barnes]

You have to put what this bill does in context. It just allows some clarity as to who has responsibility for occupational health and safety in the offshore. What was happening before this bill was that some of the offshore regulations were under provincial control and some were under federal control and would be regulated by the Offshore Petroleum Board.

This provides the clarity that the petroleum board is indeed the regulator that regulates occupational health and safety. But they now have a reporting relationship with the provincial labour ministers and federally they are still reporting to the Minister of Natural Resources Canada, who has to consult with the Minister of Labour on issues dealing with offshore.

So on the ground, it just provides a little more clarity as to what regulatory agency has jurisdiction.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

So you believe this is going to provide more clarity.

We were told that in the past there may have been a tendency to say “such and such is not my problem”. Do you agree that this might have been a problem in the past, and do you think this bill goes any way toward resolving that?