Bill C-4 (Historical)

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

A second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures

Part 1 implements certain income tax measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget. Most notably, it
(a) increases the lifetime capital gains exemption to $800,000 and indexes the new limit to inflation;
(b) streamlines the process for pension plan administrators to refund a contribution made to a Registered Pension Plan as a result of a reasonable error;
(c) extends the reassessment period for reportable tax avoidance transactions and tax shelters when information returns are not filed properly and on time;
(d) phases out the federal Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations tax credit;
(e) ensures that derivative transactions cannot be used to convert fully taxable ordinary income into capital gains taxed at a lower rate;
(f) ensures that the tax consequences of disposing of a property cannot be avoided by entering into transactions that are economically equivalent to a disposition of the property;
(g) ensures that the tax attributes of trusts cannot be inappropriately transferred among arm’s length persons;
(h) responds to the Sommerer decision to restore the intended tax treatment with respect to non-resident trusts;
(i) expands eligibility for the accelerated capital cost allowance for clean energy generation equipment to include a broader range of biogas production equipment and equipment used to treat gases from waste;
(j) imposes a penalty in instances where information on tax preparers and billing arrangements is missing, incomplete or inaccurate on Scientific Research and Experimental Development tax incentive program claim forms;
(k) phases out the accelerated capital cost allowance for capital assets used in new mines and certain mine expansions, and reduces the deduction rate for pre-production mine development expenses;
(l) adjusts the five-year phase-out of the additional deduction for credit unions;
(m) eliminates unintended tax benefits in respect of two types of leveraged life insurance arrangements;
(n) clarifies the restricted farm loss rules and increases the restricted farm loss deduction limit;
(o) enhances corporate anti-loss trading rules to address planning that avoids those rules;
(p) extends, in certain circumstances, the reassessment period for taxpayers who have failed to correctly report income from a specified foreign property on their annual income tax return;
(q) extends the application of Canada’s thin capitalization rules to Canadian resident trusts and non-resident entities; and
(r) introduces new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion.
Part 1 also implements other selected income tax measures. Most notably, it
(a) implements measures announced on July 25, 2012, including measures that
(i) relate to the taxation of specified investment flow-through entities, real estate investment trusts and publicly-traded corporations, and
(ii) respond to the Lewin decision;
(b) implements measures announced on December 21, 2012, including measures that relate to
(i) the computation of adjusted taxable income for the purposes of the alternative minimum tax,
(ii) the prohibited investment and advantage rules for registered plans, and
(iii) the corporate reorganization rules; and
(c) clarifies that information may be provided to the Department of Employment and Social Development for a program for temporary foreign workers.
Part 2 implements certain goods and services tax and harmonized sales tax (GST/HST) measures proposed in the March 21, 2013 budget by
(a) introducing new administrative monetary penalties and criminal offences to deter the use, possession, sale and development of electronic suppression of sales software that is designed to falsify records for the purpose of tax evasion; and
(b) clarifying that the GST/HST provision, exempting supplies by a public sector body (PSB) of a property or a service if all or substantially all of the supplies of the property or service by the PSB are made for free, does not apply to supplies of paid parking.
Part 3 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to extend and expand a temporary measure to refund a portion of employer premiums for small businesses. It also amends that Act to modify the Employment Insurance premium rate-setting mechanism, including setting the 2015 and 2016 rates and requiring that the rate be set on a seven-year break-even basis by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission beginning with the 2017 rate. The Division repeals the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board Act and related provisions of other Acts. Lastly, it makes technical amendments to the Employment Insurance (Fishing) Regulations.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to remove the prohibition against federal and provincial Crown agents and federal and provincial government employees being directors of a federally regulated financial institution. It also amends the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to remove the obligation of certain persons to give the Minister of Finance notice of their intent to borrow money from a federally regulated financial institution or from a corporation that has deposit insurance under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act to clarify the rules for certain indirect acquisitions of foreign financial institutions.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Criminal Code to update the definition “passport” in subsection 57(5) and also amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to update the reference to the Minister in paragraph 11(1)(a).
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Labour Code to amend the definition of “danger” in subsection 122(1), to modify the refusal to work process, to remove all references to health and safety officers and to confer on the Minister of Labour their powers, duties and functions. It also makes consequential amendments to the National Energy Board Act, the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act and the Non-smokers’ Health Act.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act to change the name of the Department to the Department of Employment and Social Development and to reflect that name change in the title of that Act and of its responsible Minister. In addition, the Division amends Part 6 of that Act to extend that Minister’s powers with respect to certain Acts, programs and activities and to allow the Minister of Labour to administer or enforce electronically the Canada Labour Code. The Division also adds the title of a Minister to the Salaries Act. Finally, it makes consequential amendments to several other Acts to reflect the name change.
Division 7 of Part 3 authorizes Her Majesty in right of Canada to hold, dispose of or otherwise deal with the Dominion Coal Blocks in any manner.
Division 8 of Part 3 authorizes the amalgamation of four Crown corporations that own or operate international bridges and gives the resulting amalgamated corporation certain powers. It also makes consequential amendments and repeals certain Acts.
Division 9 of Part 3 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide that agent corporations designated by the Minister of Finance may, subject to any terms and conditions of the designation, pledge any securities or cash that they hold, or give deposits, as security for the payment or performance of obligations arising out of derivatives that they enter into or guarantee for the management of financial risks.
Division 10 of Part 3 amends the National Research Council Act to reduce the number of members of the National Research Council of Canada and to create the position of Chairperson of the Council.
Division 11 of Part 3 amends the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act to reduce the permanent number of members of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
Division 12 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act to allow for the appointment of up to three directors who are not residents of Canada.
Division 13 of Part 3 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to extend to the whole Act the protection for communications that are subject to solicitor-client privilege and to provide that information disclosed by the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada under subsection 65(1) of that Act may be used by a law enforcement agency referred to in that subsection only as evidence of a contravention of Part 1 of that Act.
Division 14 of Part 3 enacts the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund Act, which establishes the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Fund. The Division also repeals the Mackenzie Gas Project Impacts Act.
Division 15 of Part 3 amends the Conflict of Interest Act to allow the Governor in Council to designate a person or class of persons as public office holders and to designate a person who is a public office holder or a class of persons who are public office holders as reporting public office holders, for the purposes of that Act.
Division 16 of Part 3 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to establish a new regime that provides that a foreign national who wishes to apply for permanent residence as a member of a certain economic class may do so only if they have submitted an expression of interest to the Minister and have subsequently been issued an invitation to apply.
Division 17 of Part 3 modernizes the collective bargaining and recourse systems provided by the Public Service Labour Relations Act regime. It amends the dispute resolution process for collective bargaining by removing the choice of dispute resolution method and substituting conciliation, which involves the possibility of the use of a strike as the method by which the parties may resolve impasses. In those cases where 80% or more of the positions in a bargaining unit are considered necessary for providing an essential service, the dispute resolution mechanism is to be arbitration. The collective bargaining process is further streamlined through amendments to the provision dealing with essential services. The employer has the exclusive right to determine that a service is essential and the numbers of positions that will be required to provide that service. Bargaining agents are to be consulted as part of the essential services process. The collective bargaining process is also amended by extending the timeframe within which a notice to bargain collectively may be given before the expiry of a collective agreement or arbitral award.
In addition, the Division amends the factors that arbitration boards and public interest commissions must take into account when making awards or reports, respectively. It also amends the processes for the making of those awards and reports and removes the compensation analysis and research function from the mandate of the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
The Division streamlines the recourse process set out for grievances and complaints in Part 2 of the Public Service Labour Relations Act and for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act.
The Division also establishes a single forum for employees to challenge decisions relating to discrimination in the public service. Grievances and complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Labour Relations Board under the grievance process set out in the Public Service Labour Relations Act. The process for the review of those grievances or complaints is to be the same as the one that currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, grievances and complaints related specifically to staffing complaints are to be heard by the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. Grievances relating to discrimination are required to be submitted within one year or any longer period that the Public Service Labour Relations Board considers appropriate, to reflect what currently exists under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Furthermore, the Division amends the grievance recourse process in several ways. With the sole exception of grievances relating to issues of discrimination, employees included in a bargaining unit may only present or refer an individual grievance to adjudication if they have the approval of and are represented by their bargaining agent. Also, the process as it relates to policy grievances is streamlined, including by defining more clearly an adjudicator’s remedial power when dealing with a policy grievance.
In addition, the Division provides for a clearer apportionment of the expenses of adjudication relating to the interpretation of a collective agreement. They are to be borne in equal parts by the employer and the bargaining agent. If a grievance relates to a deputy head’s direct authority, such as with respect to discipline, termination of employment or demotion, the expenses are to be borne in equal parts by the deputy head and the bargaining agent. The expenses of adjudication for employees who are not represented by a bargaining agent are to be borne by the Public Service Labour Relations Board.
Finally, the Division amends the recourse process for staffing complaints under the Public Service Employment Act by ensuring that the right to complain is triggered only in situations when more than one employee participates in an exercise to select employees that are to be laid off. And, candidates who are found not to meet the qualifications set by a deputy head may only complain with respect to their own assessment.
Division 18 of Part 3 establishes the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board to replace the Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal. The new Board will deal with matters that were previously dealt with by those former Boards under the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Employment Act, respectively, which will permit proceedings under those Acts to be consolidated.
Division 19 of Part 3 adds declaratory provisions to the Supreme Court Act, respecting the criteria for appointing judges to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in supporting Bill C-5 at second reading. Before beginning, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the extraordinary member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.

The bill before us today is important. It is the result of negotiations that have gone on for a long time now, for more than 12 years in fact, between the governments of Canada, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This bill seeks to remedy long-standing issues in existing legislation relating to health and safety standards in offshore areas, with regard to the oil and gas sector.

If passed, Bill C-5 will enshrine safety practices in legislation, and it will establish a framework that clarifies the individual and collective roles of the federal government, the provincial governments, regulatory agencies, operators, employers, suppliers and workers.

There are three key principles that underlie Bill C-5. First, the legislation relating to workplace health and safety must protect workers in offshore areas as well as workers on land. In addition, workers have the right to know, to participate, to refuse, to be protected from reprisal and to receive adequate protection. Finally, it is necessary to support an occupational health and safety culture that emphasizes shared responsibility in the workplace.

The NDP is proud to support Bill C-5, which will make it possible to establish a stronger system for the protection of workers, which the NDP has been demanding for a very long time now. Clearly, in our view, the bill still does not go far enough, but it is a step in the right direction just the same. That is why we are going to support it. We hope we will be able to work with our colleagues from all parties to improve the bill and ensure that in offshore areas the workers in the gas and oil sector will enjoy adequate workplace health and safety protection.

Quite frankly, I find it rather refreshing that the Conservatives are introducing a bill that provides greater protection for workers' rights. This is surprising. We are not used to seeing the government take this kind of approach—quite the opposite.

Indeed, since winning a majority, the Conservatives have introduced a growing number of measures to erode protections for workers and undermine their rights, which is very unfortunate. This represents a small change in direction. However, we should certainly not forget the various measures the government has taken to effectively undermine the protection regimes in place for our workers in various sectors.

I am particularly thinking of Bill C-377, an underhanded and mean-spirited bill designed to cripple Canadian unions by creating a massive bureaucracy they have to comply with, under the phony pretext of increasing the transparency of organizations. However, everyone knows full well that the Conservatives' real objective in introducing such a bill is to undermine the unions' ability to appropriately represent their members and defend their rights.

We know that the members opposite may find this concept difficult to understand, because in fact, none of them are participating in today's debate. We are talking about protecting workers and implementing very important measures to protect the people who work in the oil and gas industry—which the Conservatives care deeply about. However, they do not even bother to rise, to represent their constituents and defend the rights of workers.

However, they have no qualms whatsoever about introducing a growing number of measures to undermine the rights of workers in various industries. To be honest, this makes no sense at all.

I can mention another measure that attacked workers' rights, namely the special legislation passed by the Conservatives during the Canada Post lockout in June 2011. This legislation forced the employees back to work, obviously under worse conditions, while reducing their pensions and their protections, which were in fact acquired rights. The Conservatives gave themselves the power to gut certain measures that had been negotiated between the employer and employees. The Conservatives, however, clearly decided to circumvent all that.

This also brings to mind the recently tabled Bill C-4, which ironically weakens workers' health and safety protections. It also allows the minister to decide, unilaterally in a totally arbitrary way, which public services to designate essential, thus limiting the actions workers will be able to undertake to defend their rights or demand better working conditions.

Finally, who could forget how the Conservatives have gut the employment insurance system? They are leading a direct attack against seasonal workers all across the country. The Conservatives are not only failing Quebec and the eastern provinces: every part of the country will feel the impact of the employment insurance reform.

In my riding, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, not a day goes by without someone phoning or visiting our office because they are adversely affected by the EI reform, a reform the Conservatives pushed through without consulting the provinces, the territories or labour organizations.

All these examples illustrate the Conservatives' general attitude. Luckily, there is a tiny glimmer of hope now, since Bill C-5 would provide some workers with additional protections. Let us seize this ray of hope.

The NDP will support this bill. I must say again, though, how disappointed I am that the Conservatives are not taking part in the debate on Bill C-5. It may be that they have forgotten how debates work, or that they have no idea how to defend workers' rights, since they have never done it before. Why start now? Even though the Conservatives are introducing a bill about workers' rights, they are so close to big corporate bosses that they can no longer rise in the House and defend workers' rights, even when they should be standing up for their constituents.

NDP members will keep up the good work, doing their best to stand up for Canadians, including those the Conservatives should be standing up for. Today's debate is important. It is a shame so few government members are actually taking part in the debate.

Let us get back to Bill C-5. As I said earlier, this bill will improve the lives of offshore workers in some ways. However, it does have some shortcomings, the most significant of which is the fact that the government refused to create an independent, stand-alone safety regulator for the offshore zone. The governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have repeatedly called for this, but the Conservative government refused at every stage of the 12 years of negotiations.

In his June 2010 report, the hon. Robert Wells made several recommendations, including recommendation 29, which he believed to be the most important one in the report. The recommendation called for the creation of a new, independent and stand-alone organization to regulate safety issues in the offshore. This organization would have to be distinct and independent from all other bodies regulating offshore activities and would be solely responsible for regulating safety issues. Similar organizations exist in Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia. The United States is also considering setting up this type of body in the Gulf of Mexico. The Conservatives, however, have refused to even consider the idea. That is not how an NDP government would have handled things. We think it is important to create that kind of body. We will work toward that, which means that we will continue to pressure the government to create that kind of body, and we will continue to support our provincial partners as they work toward that goal, which is very important.

Various accidents and tragedies have occurred on our coasts, some of them fatal. Several of my colleagues have talked about that in the House, including my colleague from St. John's East. Despite everything, despite the Wells report and despite the fact that people from across the country have repeatedly asked the government for this, the government will not budge. Such an organization is not included in the bill and will not be created.

I think that is a shame because there are some measures in Bill C-5, measures that protect worker health and safety, that the NDP can support. We will be happy to do so.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beaches—East York.

It is not easy to take the floor after such a passionate speech. However, this is an issue that affects us all. Although Bill C-5 is especially important to the Atlantic provinces, we all have a role to play in the overall issue of workers' safety. We definitely need to do more to improve working conditions.

As my colleague said, it is unfortunate that other than this bill—and not to mention the fact that Bill C-4 is undoing some of the work of Bill C-5—the government is not listening to these concerns. I could list numerous examples to demonstrate why I am saying that.

The most important aspect for me is my own riding. When I am replying to people's letters or attending events, I often hear people saying that they get the impression that businesses in our communities are increasingly being given carte blanche. The example that comes to mind in the rail industry is this summer's tragedy in Lac-Mégantic. It is just one example of how deregulation can affect the public. I believe it is relevant because the issue of workers' safety is part of that domino effect.

The federal government is failing to provide leadership when it gives carte blanche to the oil and rail industries. Consequently, those industries will abandon their employees, the workers.

With that in mind, as legislators, it falls to us to ensure that regulations allow people to work in the safest environment possible. Will we ever ensure that 100% of people are protected and that there will be no workplace accidents? Of course not. There is always a potential for risk.

Still, that argument is not enough to convince us, as legislators, to abdicate our responsibilities. That is why we can be proud of the work done by various levels of government with respect to Bill C-5. This excellent example also proves to the government that it is a good idea to sit down with provincial governments from time to time to get results like the one before us today.

That being said, despite the good work that seems to have gone into this bill, it is important to note that there are still some shortcomings. The most significant of these is the absence of the well-known recommendation 29 from the Wells report, a recommendation that speaks to a situation that arises frequently with this government.

This recommendation sought to create an independent organization responsible for workplace safety. Every time anyone recommends setting up an independent organization to evaluate safety or anything else, the government seems to get nervous. We know how it treated the parliamentary budget officer, an independent officer of Parliament who had a job to do in Canadians' best interest. There are other examples too. I remember a bill on military police introduced about a year ago.

Even in that case, the government was not ready to include an independent ombudsman in the bill, a person who would have the power to conduct independent evaluations on behalf of the people. After all, as politicians, we are not always in a good position. Even within these institutions, and particularly within a company, people are not always equipped to make decisions that are not influenced by their own biases. That is why it is important to pay attention to this recommendation.

We would sure like to ask the government member why our recommendation was not included in the bill. Unfortunately, I do not think that we will get an answer unless a Conservative member finally decides to participate in the debate. Since returning to the House and since the Speech from the Throne marked the end of prorogation a few weeks ago, we have heard very little or nothing at all from government members about quite a few bills, including this one.

When the time comes to do our job as MPs, deal with such issues and speak to the shortcomings of a bill, even if we support it, we are unable to ask questions and to have a healthy debate. In the end, we are forced to point out flaws of a bill to government members who, in this case, remain silent.

The bill is at second reading stage. However, when we are in committee, I hope that we will hear more from government members and the parliamentary secretary who are on the committee. Our concerns might finally be addressed. Even though this is a step in the right direction, we would like to know why the government did not choose to follow through and implement all the recommendations in order to have a much tougher bill with respect to workers' rights.

When it comes to the rights, health and safety of workers, we cannot take half measures. However, we will not reject this half measure, as it does represent a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the NDP believes that we must implement all of the recommendations. We firmly believe in this philosophy, and we will put it in place when we form the government. If a recommendation is found to be lacking, we will at least rise in the House, out of respect for workers, and explain the government's viewpoint, or why some recommendations were set aside.

In conclusion, I would like to use my last two minutes to expand on a point that I made in my speech. This issue primarily affects my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces, but when it comes to the people of Chambly—Borduas, legislators have the mandate to protect not just oil company workers but also the people who work for any of the big businesses that we welcome into our community. That is my first concern about this bill.

These companies have a business to run and it is good for the economy to welcome them into our communities. However, in my opinion, as the MP for Chambly—Borduas, if these companies are going to set up shop in our communities, they must be good corporate citizens and respect the legislators' intent to implement regulations so that they understand that our constituents are the ones working for them and who make it possible for them to do their job and make a profit. It is a symbiotic relationship, a two-way street. In that respect, I do not think that we are asking for much.

We hope that they will agree to this type of proposal and that they will play an active role in it. We often hear what labour federations have to say on this subject, but it is important that the companies play an active role in the health and safety of their workers, who are the Canadians that I have the honour of representing.

It is extremely important.

I am now prepared to take questions from my colleagues.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member's speech on safety, particularly in our offshore and in industry throughout Canada, was very passionate. I thank him for his kind remarks concerning my involvement in this.

I note the member talked about the recommendation of Mr. Justice Wells to have an independent safety regulator, what he called his “most important recommendation”. It was supported by the federations of labour in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador most strongly, but it is not implemented here.

I would point out another problem that we have discovered since the legislation has been tabled, which is the so-called “budget implementation act”, Bill C-4. I do not know what this has to do with budget implementation.

This bill is designed to give stronger powers to health and safety officers named in the act, with amendments to such in section 144 of the Canada Labour Code to give certain powers and immunities to health and safety officers. However, it is contradicted by Bill C-4, which also amends section 144, but, in fact, it takes the words “health and safety officers” entirely out of the Canada Labour Code and gives all of their powers to the minister or his delegates.

I am wondering about two things.

I know this is a technical point, but what does that say about the current government's approach to legislation when this bill, which is very much the same as Bill C-61 in the last Parliament and has been around a long time, can be thwarted by a budget implementation bill, one of these omnibus bills that would amend the Canada Labour Code and dozens of other acts? What does it say about the Conservative government's handling of these important matters?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. I raised the concern in my speech that the changes to the definitions in Bill C-4 would weaken the rights that have been provided to offshore workers: the right to refuse and the right to work safely. That is a concern.

As the member said, we need to make sure that people are held accountable and that we have safe and healthy workplaces. That is what this legislation is all about, to make sure we never have an Ocean Ranger again, to make sure we never have a Cougar flight 491 again in the offshore, to make sure we never have a disaster the scale of the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the gulf.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for his remarks. As a former miner myself, I was in the Brunswick mine in 1976 when six people were killed underground in 18 months. That is why we passed legislation on the right to refuse work.

I remember the Westray act, which—as the hon. member said just now—was designed to help the loved ones of the people who worked there. In Bill C-4, we see that the government wants to change the definition of unsafe work. It says that people are refusing too much work.

Is Parliament able to take the responsibility for passing a bill that actually does not make responsible people responsible? It is irresponsible on the part of the government to introduce bills that will encourage companies to adopt unsafe work practices. That is what will happen, just as it happened at the Westray mine, at the Brunswick mine, and at many other places of work. With the Conservative government, we are moving backwards.

Does the hon. member agree with me?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak for a few moments on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures. This is a piece of legislation that exists as a result of negotiations that have been going on for literally 12 years between the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. It mirrors legislation that has already been passed in both of those provincial legislatures, so we will not be amending it here. If we were to do so, it would mean that they would have to go back to the drawing board.

Bill C-5 is an attempt to strengthen offshore health and safety practices in the oil and gas industry, which have been separated and left to regulation. That is a problem that I have certainly seen with other legislation. In my former jurisdiction of Nova Scotia, the government for 20 years did the same thing with the Trade Union Act, on the one hand, and with health and safety legislation on the other. What we found out, certainly in the case of health and safety legislation, was that it was not good enough to do it all by regulation. We had to make sure that the rules of the road, the principles, were properly articulated. The regulations would be there to make sure that those principles were carried forward.

It is good to see that the three governments involved here see that this is important to have done. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill at second reading.

The bill would put the practice into legislation based on three basic principles. Number one is that offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protection that is at least as good as what exists for onshore workers. This is a situation that has existed for far too many years and is finally being addressed here. Number two is the protection of employee rights; that is, to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal will be covered in the bill. Number three is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibility in the workplace.

We support this legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction for offshore safety, but more work still needs to be done. We hope that the federal government continues to work with the provinces to strengthen offshore safety regulations and that an independent stand-alone safety regulator is created for the future. That last point is something that came out of the Wells commission that recommended that a stand-alone regulator be put in place. It was something that was not agreed to by the parties and therefore does not exist. We think it is very important. I am going to speak a little more about that here this afternoon.

As usual, a bill like this comes to the floor of the legislature as a result of hard lessons, and in this case, lessons learned from years of offshore tragedies.

It has been more than 30 years since Canada's worse offshore disaster. In 1982, 84 people were killed when the drill rig Ocean Ranger sank off Newfoundland. A royal commission was subsequently convened in 1984, and that commission criticized the industry for poor safety training and equipment and lax inspections.

I want to take a moment to read a section from a book that was written by a good friend of mine, someone who lost her brother in that disaster back in 1982.

Susan Dodd wrote an exceptional piece of work called The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, which not only talks about that disaster, what led to it, what resulted from it, and the devastation it caused to the families involved but very much documents the problems that resulted as a consequence of legislators not paying attention. It was a result, frankly, of the power of the oil and gas sector to basically have its way and go about its business and of governments saying, “Thank you very much. We'll take some royalty revenue from you, but we'll try not to get in your way”.

I want to read, if I may, a passage from the book, which I think underlines why it is so important that we not only pay attention to the bill but that we also think about the role we play here as legislators to ensure that we do everything in our power to provide the laws, the regulations, the rules of the road, and the protections that would ensure that people living and working in this country and for this country are safe.

Let me quote:

The shock of the Ocean Ranger disaster was not that oil production was dangerous, but rather the realization that governments had betrayed people's faith. People trusted governments to use reasonable regulation to mitigate the risks of oil jobs. That trust was misplaced. There were no provincial safety regulations in the Newfoundland offshore when my brother and his eighty-three co-workers died.... Time and again, publics trust governments to ensure that companies operate with reasonable prudence. Time and again we are shocked by a new disaster caused by corporate negligence. We say we will “never forget.”

We do it all the time in this House.

Then we forget. And then it happens again.

The author goes on to talk about the fact that the most recent example is 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and injured 17 more, resulting in the worst U.S. marine oil spill in history.

It is a fascinating book. I urge all members, or anyone interested, to take a look at it. Again, it is The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, and the author is Susan Dodd.

It is particularly important for those of us living on the coast, and in my case, living on the east coast. We know that Shell has invested over $1 billion to further explore an oil field off our coast. BP, in another area offshore, is further investing nearly $1 billion in exploring a similar development.

In other words, we cannot pretend that it is not coming again, that we are not going to be out there again. There are rigs out there off Newfoundland. We know that there are drilling rigs and exploratory rigs out there. There is equipment moving around our coast. We need to make sure that the people working in our offshore and the people servicing the offshore are provided with the necessary protections to ensure that these kinds of disasters do not happen again. It is important that we do that now.

I should say, of course, that a more recent review of offshore safety came in 2009, after the crash of Cougar Flight 91, which killed 17 people. The Wells inquiry into the Cougar crash made a number of recommendations, most notably the creation of an autonomous and dedicated safety regulator, which is not included.

My colleague, the member for St. John's East, raised a question in the House today about a recommendation that has gone before transport to ensure that airplanes and helicopters are able to operate an hour after they no longer have any oil or have run dry. It is an important safety measure that would have ensured that the disaster I referred to, Cougar Flight 91, did not happen. We continue to ask the government questions about why it is that it is unwilling to introduce that particular requirement for the offshore.

While I am disappointed, as others on this side have said, that this bill does not call for an independent safety regulator, I believe that it is a step in the right direction.

Again, it implements many of the principles of occupational health and safety. As I have said, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections that are at least as good as those that exist for onshore workers. The protection of employee rights to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal needs to be included.

That is an issue that has been raised in this session of the House in relation to Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill. In there are changes that lessen the responsibilities of health and safety inspectors. We are concerned about the implications those changes would have on Bill C-5. As I said, this bill talks about setting up a balance between health and safety protections onshore and offshore and about providing clear protection of the rights of employees to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal. We are concerned that the omnibus budget bill, in fact, lessens those rights in federal jurisdictions and therefore may have some implications here. I understand that in a recent briefing on this bill, we were unable to get answers to those particular questions, but we will continue to ask.

Finally is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace.

As I have suggested to members, we will continue to see further exploration, further development of natural resources, off our coasts. We need to make sure that we provide the environmental protections necessary, if we are going to go forward, to ensure that no problems exist and that no problems are created that endanger our natural resources, coastlines, industries, fisheries, environment, marine life, or oceans. It is an issue that has come up on the east coast and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

We know that the issue of the development of the Old Harry site is a controversial one. It is controversial for reasons like this. We must make sure that we have protections in place for the people who work on any particular drill site and that the environmental protections are in place before any company is allowed to proceed with any development.

In the Gulf, as we have heard in this House, if there is an oil spill, God forbid, it takes upward of a year for the Gulf of St. Lawrence to empty and the water to cycle around. It would be absolutely devastating to Quebec, New Brunswick, the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, of course, to the waters that flow into and out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is important that we pay attention to how we are moving forward and ensure that all of our laws are properly constructed to cover any potential problems that may exist.

This is a situation where laws are just now catching up with a disaster that happened 30 years ago, in which 84 people lost their lives. We have to be able to respond more quickly. We have to make sure we can look forward and learn from what is happening in other jurisdictions. Let us not wait until the worst case scenario actually presents itself, and let us bring legislation forward to prevent the kinds of disasters we have talked about, which happened in the past and are happening in other jurisdictions.

That is why we need to move forward and work closely with the provinces, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. On another offshore related issue, the Province of Nova Scotia has extended a moratorium against oil and natural gas development in Georges Bank. That area was determined to be extraordinarily vulnerable, a very sensitive ecosystem, very much a nursery for the fishery throughout the east coast. It has been determined in the past by both the federal and provincial governments working together that we needed to prevent any industrial development in that area of the ocean.

As well, the Province of Nova Scotia has passed legislation to make sure that will not happen, but the federal government, this time, has failed to work with the Province of Nova Scotia. We will continue to push the government on that question. The moratorium must be extended to protect the industry that now exists, the fishery, to protect the ecosystem, to protect our oceans and to protect our environment throughout the east coast.

Again, that is another part of the legislative framework that needs to be put in place to ensure that, as developments continue to move forward, we have the protections in place to ensure that damage is not done to what already exists and what might exist well into the future.

Both BP and Shell Oil are set to conduct new deepwater oil exploration off Nova Scotia for the first time since 2005. We believe that our workers deserve nothing less than to feel safe not only in their workplaces but, in the case of the offshore industry, in transit to the workplace as well.

I hope the government will continue to work with the provinces involved to make sure that offshore safety regulations are strengthened and that we can avoid offshore tragedies like Cougar flight 91, the BP spill in the Gulf, and the Ocean Ranger disaster.

It was a pleasure to participate in this debate. I look forward to any questions.

Labour-Sponsored Funds

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of Canadians from Quebec who are denouncing the decision made by the government on Bill C-4 to terminate the tax credit on the labour-sponsored venture capital funds, which will clearly end a huge economic benefit and destroy a system providing retirement income for many.

Income Tax Act

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue and for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate today on Bill C-201, which is sponsored by the member for Hamilton Mountain.

The bill proposes to allow tradespeople and apprentices to deduct from their taxable income travel and accommodation expenses that they incur in order to secure and maintain employment. These deductions would be subject to certain conditions.

I would like to focus on a few reasons why I oppose Bill C-201.

First of all, our government is quite focused on providing support for employees and tradespeople across the country. Second, the bill would be ineffective and inequitable. It would be ineffective because there is no evidence that the proposal would increase the likelihood that tradespeople will travel more for work, and inequitable in that some tradespeople would receive tax relief for work-related travel while other workers would not.

Third, especially during a time of fiscal responsibility, the bill would be very costly and that cost would be significant at this time in our economy. The bill looks nice and has a nice sound to it. It is kind of like a chocolate cake with a lot of icing on it. We look at the icing on the chocolate cake and say it looks tasty, but it really is not good for us. There is no way to square that piece of cake to be good for us.

I will start by highlighting our government's role in supporting employees and tradespeople. I would like to say that the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did not support any of the legislation that we brought in to support employees and tradespeople. That needs to be noted during this debate. I mean, it is one thing to have a personal preference. It is one thing to have a party bias. I think we all have some party bias in this place. However, it is another thing to ignore good legislation simply because it is the government that brings it in.

Canada's strong economic performance during the global recession has been widely recognized around the world. Although it may not have gotten the same amount of press as other key initiatives, Canada's economic action plan provided key funding to several organizations to stimulate growth and jobs during the recent recession and helped tradespeople and other Canadians find jobs.

Our government knows that Canadian workers are among the best educated and the best trained in the world. However, Canada is facing a skilled labour shortage. In particular, persistent pockets of unfilled positions exist for some skilled tradespeople and professional occupations. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce, for example, has identified Canada's skills shortage as the number one issue facing its membership.

Our government takes this issue seriously. To help Canadians connect with available jobs, in economic action plan 2013 we set out a three-point plan to address these challenges. First, economic action plan 2013 introduced the new Canada job grant, which would provide $15,000 or more per person, including the maximum federal contribution of $5,000, to be matched by the provinces, territories and employers, to ensure Canadians are getting the skills employers are seeking.

Second, the plan would create opportunities for apprentices by working with provinces and territories to examine the use of practical tests as a method of assessment and to harmonize requirements, and by introducing measures that would support the use of apprentices through federal construction and maintenance contracts, investments in affordable housing and infrastructure projects that receive federal funding. Finally, it would provide support to groups that are under-represented in the job market, such as persons with disabilities, youth, aboriginal peoples and newcomers, to help them find good jobs.

These are great initiatives that are directly helping to fill the labour shortages and connect Canadians with jobs. These are all measures that the opposition has voted against. If the member's bill attempts to focus on apprentices and tradespeople, let me highlight some of the measures our government has already taken to support these individuals.

Since 2006, our government has invested nearly $2.7 billion per year to support skills and training programs. We have supported tradespeople with the tradesperson's tools deduction and extended the fees eligible for the tuition tax credit to include those examinations required to be certified as a tradesperson in Canada, thereby encouraging more tradespeople to become red seal tradesmen. With a red seal, they can work anywhere in the country.

Our government has legislated measures such as the apprenticeship job creation tax credit, the apprenticeship incentive grant, and the apprenticeship completion grant. Tax credits already exist for employers and tradespersons, such as the Canada employment credit, the moving expenses deduction, and the special or remote work sites tax exemptions.

That is not all. We understand that education has a big part in this equation as well. We will promote education in fields where there is high demand for employees, including science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and skilled trades. We will help improve educational and labour market outcomes for aboriginal peoples by investing to improve the on-reserve income assistance program and by providing funding for post-secondary scholarships and bursaries.

We will continue to work with the provinces and territories and stakeholders to improve the foreign credential recognition process, thereby enhancing the integration of internationally trained individuals in the job market.

Put simply, our government remains focused on what matters to Canadians—jobs and economic growth and ensuring that Canada's economic advantage today will translate into the long-term prosperity of tomorrow.

Let me now address some of the specific concerns we have with the bill before us.

First, we believe that providing an income tax deduction for job-related travel and accommodation expenses, as proposed under Bill C-201, would make it difficult to ensure that tax relief is not provided for personal expenses that reflect lifestyle decisions. Under the provisions of this bill, expenses incurred by eligible individuals who choose to live more than 80 kilometres from the workplace for personal reasons would quality for tax relief.

Second, the open-ended nature of the proposed deduction would make it vulnerable to unfair tax planning and abuse. For example, individuals could arrange their affairs to claim a recreational property, such as a cottage that is more than 80 kilometres from work, as their principal residence. They could then deduct the cost of maintaining their urban residence as an expense required to secure and maintain employment. That is a serious flaw with this piece of proposed legislation. This is not conductive to a fair tax system, especially as we have just been debating Bill C-4, which emphasizes our government's commitment to a fair tax system for all Canadians.

Third, the bill would raise equity concerns, as eligible tradespersons and indentured apprentices would be able to reduce their tax liability when they incurred eligible travel and accommodation expenses whereas other workers who had to incur similar work-related travel expenses, such as nurses, would not receive tax assistance. This would result in individuals with a similar capacity to pay taxes having markedly different tax liabilities, due solely to occupational differences.

Fourth, it is not clear that the bill would increase travel by tradespersons and indentured apprentices. In fact, for individuals who would have incurred eligible travel and accommodation expenses in any case, the deduction would represent a windfall gain.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the cost of the proposal would be significant. Preliminary estimates suggest that providing tax assistance to tradespersons and indentured apprentices for travel and accommodation expenses would cost approximately $60 million per year at maturity. At a time when our government is committed to returning to balanced budgets and eliminating the deficit, this bill, which already raises some concerns, would be extremely costly to the government.

In addition, Bill C-201 would create pressure to extend tax relief in respect of other expenses or other types of employees, at a higher fiscal cost.

Make no mistake. Our government believes in tax relief for all Canadians. Canadians know that when it comes to tax reductions, this government has a long-standing record of significant achievements. By keeping taxes low, our government is allowing Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money.

In conclusion, this bill is poorly targeted, would subsidize personal choices, and would open the door to unfair tax planning. It would also entail a cost of approximately $60 million per year. It would create pressure to extend tax relief to other work-related expenses at a higher fiscal cost. In addition, our government already provides tax relief and program support for tradespersons and apprentices and tax relief for employees who must incur travel-related expenses in the course of their employment.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing from the member for Vegreville—Wainwright about his concern for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. I say to him and anybody else in the House to never count out the Atlantic Canada provinces in terms of fulfilling our proper role in this federation.

I want to ask for the member's thoughts on something. New Democrats are particularly happy that Bill C-5 clarifies the rights of health and safety officers to protect work sites and enforce the rights of working people to work in safe and healthy workplaces. However, if we compare that with provisions in Bill C-4 that clearly strip health and safety officers of their powers in the Canada Labour Code and turn them over to the minister, there is a clear contradiction between, on the one hand, trying to clarify and enforce the rights of working people and, on the other hand, pushing them further up the chain to somebody whose interests are potentially contrary to those of people on the floor.

I want to ask the member if he would please try to clarify for me why his government is pushing forward this serious contradiction in terms of the rights of working people.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague took a bit of literary licence with what I said. I said that the chief safety officer and safety officers on construction sites could actually do that. It would not necessarily be a worker just deciding that he could do that. A certain appeal mechanism would have to happen.

We have shown a lot of leadership in taking this on and putting it in the bill. Typically, the provincial government has control over occupational health and safety for a lot of workforces. The fact that these are in this bill and we are doing it suggests to me that our government recognizes this is very important.

The complaints of the opposition of what was done in Bill C-4 is just a red herring.

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention by the member opposite and his knowledge on the issue of workplace health and safety, his commitment to the principle and how important it is. He referred to the right of workers to shut down a work site if they decided that the performance of that work would place any worker at the site in a dangerous situation. I commend him for that.

I also agree that the bill does outline the duties of occupational health and safety officers and provides these officers with enforcement powers of warrant provisions, inspections and investigation. It does very much clarify those rights.

I wonder if he could clarify something for me.There is a provision in Bill C-4, the budget implementation act, that strips away the right of working people to declare a workplace unsafe, to exercise the right to refuse, and puts all of the power into the hands of the minister. Given what the member said, I think he would agree it certainly is a regressive move. It is a weakening of the rights of working people to determine whether their workplace is in fact safe and healthy.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on Bill C-5. One of the greatest privileges of being a member of this place is the opportunity to create and improve legislation that positively impacts the lives of our fellow Canadians. I believe, in fact, that Bill C-5 is a case in point.

It is not news to Canadians that our country places great economic importance on the development of natural resources. Throughout our history, that has been the case. Forestry products, natural gas, hydroelectricity and oil are cornerstones of our export market and contribute immensely to the creation of jobs for middle-class Canadians. Some of our natural resources are also extracted offshore. In Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador people know the importance this activity has for their economies.

The offshore sector is, of course, the subject of the bill, specifically the occupational health and safety of offshore workers. Mirror legislation has already received royal assent, in fact, in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia. While the bill is quite large, several hundred pages or more, some observers have noted that it primarily lays down in law things that are already happening in practice. Unfortunately, one issue that the bill does not address is recommendation 29 from the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry led by Commissioner Robert Wells.

The Wells inquiry was established by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board following the 2009 helicopter crash about 30 nautical miles off of St. John's, Newfoundland. As members may recall, the helicopter was carrying 16 people to work in the offshore fields when it crashed, killing 15 of those workers and the two pilots. Commissioner Wells recommended that a new, independent, stand-alone safety regulator be established to regulate safety in the offshore. In fact, I asked the minister about that idea a little earlier.

The commissioner went on to say that if recommendation 29 was not feasible, a separate and autonomous safety division of the C-NLOPB should be created to deal only with safety matters. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 does not implement this recommendation in either of the ways the commissioner offered as options. I would urge the Conservative government to see if it can address this fact when the legislation is sent to committee, which I think it will be, and amendments are brought forward. If that cannot be done, perhaps it could bring forward legislation soon, working with the provinces involved, obviously, to deal with this.

As Canadians, we are well aware, of course, of the oil sands. Its production, export and environmental impact colours the discourse of the government every day. It is often talked about here in the House, and these days in the U.S. as well. Lesser known but still valuable is our domestic offshore oil and gas industry operating in the coastal waters of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, even though in Nova Scotia there has been a decline in revenues from the offshore in recent years as the production of gas from existing wells declines and with the relatively low price of gas in North America. In fact, in North America the gas level price is about $3 whereas in Asia it is between $14 and $18, so there is quite a variation. That means that there is a little less interest these days in more costly exploration offshore versus production onshore, as is happening a great deal in the U.S.

The offshore industry in Newfoundland and Labrador produced more than 28 million barrels of oil in 2013. In Nova Scotia, offshore production accounts for a significant portion of the province's annual revenue, although it has been declining. The offshore oil and gas industry provides employment for Canadians and security for their families, for thousands of people. My hon. colleague from South Shore—St. Margaret's, for instance, would know this having worked in the offshore. He would also understand that the primary concern of the industry is its own economic viability and success. Meanwhile, as legislators, it is our responsibility to strike a careful balance between the economic success of Canadian business and the rights of employees, and of course consideration for our environment. There are and must be times when these latter two take precedence.

Bill C-5 is one of the many tools to achieve this. Canada is often referred to as a nation rich in natural resources. We must ask ourselves how we should behave when we are labelled in this way, especially these days when there is so much concern about the impact on the environment of the exploitation of natural resources and when we need to have the social licence, whether it be within our country or beyond our borders in the case of the Keystone XL pipeline that has been proposed for example, when we need to have support elsewhere for what we are doing and a recognition that we are making important efforts and doing everything we can to ensure the environment is protected. I do not think most Canadians believe for a moment that the Conservative government has been doing that.

It seems to me that we should also be striving to set an example for other countries by valuing our human capital as much as we value the wealth we derive from our natural resources. The bill is very much about our human capital as we are thinking about the safety and health of our workers.

The bill will in fact effectively solve the issue of jurisdiction surrounding the occupational and operational health and safety in the Canadian offshore oil and gas industry. That is an important thing to do. It is frustrating that it has taken over 10 years to do that. This process has been under way and we have been discussing it a long time.

Nevertheless, for this reason, because it is achieving this, the Liberal Party supports Bill C-5. We believe we need to move the legislation to committee so that it can be studied, and if necessary improved. We certainly look forward to the opportunity to examine the bill, to hear from experts and to consider possible improvements.

The original offshore accords were signed in the late 1980s by Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. They were designed to establish guidelines for revenue and responsibility sharing of offshore oil and gas assets. These assets have since proved to be economically rewarding, especially so in Newfoundland and Labrador, and have supported programs beyond the scope of resource extraction.

Bill C-5 seeks to clarify jurisdictional issues that arise between occupational health and safety and operational safety, to create a streamlined process for rectifying health and safety issues and to assign responsibility. We do not want to have any doubt, when there is an accident in the offshore, about whether it is a matter of federal or provincial jurisdiction. We want to know that there will be clear laws, that the courts will know which laws apply, and that nothing falls through the cracks. We want to know that people are protected and that in the worst case scenario, God forbid there is another accident like the helicopter accident, families seeking redress know where to go, what to look for and what laws apply to them. That is obviously important.

The right to a safe workplace is one that all Canadians must enjoy. It is fundamental for all of us. Those of us who work in this place are very fortunate. We have a very safe environment, at least in terms of actual health and safety. I did not say it was secure, especially when elections come along. Nobody here has job security for more than four years or so.

However, we are very fortunate in the kind of work we do in this job. Generally speaking it is pretty good for health and safety. We do not have to engage in the kinds of work that some people in our country do have to engage in. We can think of that television show Dirty Jobs. There are many jobs in this world that are dangerous and challenging.

This morning as I left my apartment and walked here, the first thing I saw was a new building under construction across the street. I was thinking about the construction workers and the kinds of things they have to learn to work on a site such as that. There are health and safety things they have to learn to know how to operate in an environment where it can be somewhat dangerous. If they back up the wrong way or take the wrong step, they could be in a big trouble on a construction site with a building that is already 10 storeys high, and as I learned this morning, is going to be 22 storeys. That is the kind of place where people want to be careful.

The right to a safe workplace is something the government should keep in mind as it proceeds also with Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill.

Though a safe workplace is not the reality for all, through the years, governments and parliamentarians have worked with stakeholder groups to improve the conditions faced by Canadians in their places of employment. That, obviously, is incredibly important work. Bill C-5 is an example of these efforts. In this case they are the efforts of the provincial and federal levels working together, which is nice to see. It is our collective responsibility, whether as a legislative body, employers or employees, or society as a whole, to ensure that the right to a safe work environment is respected. It is absolutely vital.

Conditions for employees on offshore drilling projects should be comparable to those found on land-based projects. There is no question that a drilling rig, whether offshore or onshore, can be a very dangerous environment. My brother at one time worked on offshore oil rigs, and I have certainly heard stories from him about the nature of them and what he had to learn before he could work there, especially if the work was around the equipment that was the most dangerous.

The mode of transportation to their work site should be safe and reliable. Think about the helicopter accident. Employees of the oil and gas sector offshore and their families should be able to leave for work with confidence that they will be returning safely home. They should be able to voice their concerns about unsafe working conditions when they find them without fear of reprisal or the frustration of drawn out and murky processes. It is important that the processes be clear and expedient.

It is our job to transform these topics of concern I have just listed into topics of confidence. Employees and their families can be confident that what is proposed in Bill C-5, as far as it goes, would improve the health and safety regimes of offshore oil and gas projects. It is up to us to decide by how much.

Members of our party believe that we need to ensure the separation of health and safety concerns from those of production and economic viability. They are two different things. We want to make sure that sometimes, when necessary, those health and safety concerns are paramount, as they ought to be.

Bill C-5 should guarantee that the proposed chief safety officer has powerful methods of inquiry to hold operators to account. A regime of self-regulation would be insufficient. I have already said that we do not think that the chief safety officer approach is necessarily ideal. There are others Commissioner Wells recommended, but since that is what we are going with, let us try to make it as strong as possible. The chief safety officer must not be influenced in decision-making by concerns of economic viability or by political pressure, obviously. This individual must be a champion of a healthy and safe environment for all employees who work on offshore oil and gas projects.

The Liberal Party places great emphasis also on search and rescue capabilities, or SAR, as it is called. This is a core element of the health and safety regime in the offshore industry.

The spring 2013 report of the Auditor General outlined significant issues regarding search and rescue capabilities, including a complete lack of federal policy in this area. The Attorney General is rightly concerned about the viability of search and rescue capabilities in the coming years and about the risk of leaving employees in the offshore sector with inadequate assistance in the case of major emergencies.

Bill C-5 includes guidelines on the safe transport of workers to and from the offshore site. It should also include a procedure for rescuing these individuals should something go wrong. This should be included in this legislation, it seems to me.

The unique challenges of the offshore oil and gas industry must be met by a complete and thorough plan of response. Bill C-5, as I said earlier, is the product of over a decade of negotiations and consultations among the federal government, the provincial governments of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, and stakeholder groups. A decade is a long time. Really, it is excessive. I would hope that future negotiations would move more quickly. If the Conservatives, at least while they are the government, will take this seriously and move quickly, along with provinces—

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could comment on the fact that the bill provides a safety regime in legislation for the offshore for the first time, but we also have before the House Bill C-4. This is a 300-page omnibus bill amending over 70 pieces of legislation, one of the provisions of which strips the health and safety officers in regimes and jurisdictions across the country of their powers and puts nearly all of those powers in the hands of the minister. On the one hand the legislation purports to give authority to the C-NLOPB and the offshore safety regulation, and on the other hand, Bill C-4 takes it away.

Could the minister explain why the government is doing that and why it thinks the health and safety of workers throughout this country is so malleable in its hands?

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the same issue over and over again in my constituency office, families who have been seeking reunification, patiently waiting. I am horrified by the change in policy and the moving of the goalposts for so many families that have been doing all the right things, filing all the right papers; they find they have to start all over again.

My question is on the member's last point, on finding omnibus budget bills. In the last number of years the Conservatives have done two omnibus bills per budget. In 2012-2013 we had a spring omnibus budget bill, C-38, and then a fall omnibus budget bill, C-45, then Bill C-60 and now Bill C-4. Each of these monstrous bills has included many aspects that had nothing at all to do with the budget, but were mere expedients for pushing things through the House that much faster.

I wonder if the hon. member knows what the official opposition would do? Could we have House rules to restrict when omnibus bills are legitimate? How would the official opposition deal with this problem?

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before we recessed for the summer, the Auditor General pointed out that there was $3.1 billion unaccounted for by the Treasury Board. I listened to the speech by the President of the Treasury Board very carefully, but my constituents have been asking me over the summer whether the $3.1 billion had been found or whether the President of the Treasury Board had had an opportunity to locate it. I hope he will inform this House in the next day or two, or weeks, whether or not that $3.1 billion has been located.

I rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to talk about Bill C-4, the budget implementation act. Bill C-4 is yet another omnibus bill proposed by the Conservatives. It comprises 300-odd pages and addresses over 70 different laws.

This is déjà vu all over again. It is like Groundhog Day. One would think that the Conservatives, after proroguing after the summer break, could come up with a new mandate, new ideas, to address the needs of Canadians and the families and individuals in my community, yet I do not see anything in the bill that addresses the real needs of Canadians: jobs, job security and well-paying jobs. That is not in the bill.

It looks as if the Conservatives never got out of the Ottawa bubble. If they had, they would see the long and growing lineups at the food banks. They would be looking at creating jobs for our young people. As members can see, the unemployment rate for young people is the highest among any age group. There is nothing in the bill that addresses the needs of our young people.

There is another crisis brewing in the Lower Mainland. Port Metro Vancouver is a major port that helps to facilitate trade. It helps move goods from the Prairies right across to the port. In the last week, I have seen the trucking industry having major issues at the port. It takes them a long time to either pick up or drop off the goods they need to transport. A crisis is looming. I urge the Conservative government to address this issue before our economy in the Lower Mainland and Vancouver area is damaged.

As members know, truckers provide a vital role in the movement of goods throughout this country. However, they are having difficulty in picking up and dropping off their goods from the port, and the wait times are very long. The government needs to address that in a way that will help with the movement of our goods.

As I said, there are many issues in Bill C-4, which addresses over 70 different bills. I want to pick up on two issues that are important to my constituents of Surrey North.

One issue is that this is a missed opportunity for the Conservative government. As I read through Bill C-4, the irony certainly strikes me that we are approaching Remembrance Day as we discuss the bill. The next couple of weeks should be dedicated to thanking Canadians in service and our veterans for their dedication to our country, including those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. At this time of the year we repeat the mantra, “Lest we forget”. However, the truth of the matter is that Bill C-4 demonstrates that the Conservatives have forgotten Canadian veterans. Here the Conservative government had an opportunity to make real changes, but Bill C-4 does not do that.

The 300-odd pages of the bill address a wide range of things, but they do not address what is needed for veterans. In Bill C-4, there is one change to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, an institution that New Democrats have repeatedly demonstrated as biased, subjective and inefficient. The Conservatives can only think of one change to make, which is to reduce the number of permanent members on the board from 28 to 25.

It is no secret that veterans do not find support or reassurance in the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. In March I spoke in the House about one of my constituents, retired sergeant Fergus, who was having difficulty navigating the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Since March, the Conservatives have had many opportunities to make changes to the VRAB, but they continue to forget about veterans.

Mr. Fergus is not alone in his plight. Many constituents have approached my office to seek help to navigate the board for disability claims. Members of the board are appointed primarily because of their political connections. They have little military or medical knowledge. These members have the responsibility of deciding the future of our veterans, but without contextual knowledge of their challenges, they often make decisions that are not based on evidence. Like the immigration system, the decision-making process of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is lengthy. Long waits can leave veterans out in the cold.

I mean “out in the cold” literally. A veteran approached my office this summer who was at risk of being homeless after serving Canada bravely for years. It is clear that the Canadian government did not intend to serve my constituent, retired sergeant Lorenz. Although my office helped him navigate the application process, Mr. Lorenz is now at a standstill while he waits to see a psychologist to assess his mental health. He has to wait six months. He already knows that he has post-traumatic stress disorder, but he must wait six months before his application can continue. After he sacrificed so much for peace and freedom, it is shameful that Mr. Lorenz must wait this long to be awarded the benefits and support to which he is entitled.

I thank Mr. Fergus and Mr. Lorenz, and all the men and women who have bravely stood up for our country, for their service. I commit, along with my NDP colleagues, to continue to stand up for their rights around Remembrance Day and throughout the whole year.

The other area I want to talk about that is contained in the bill is the changes to the immigration act.

My constituency is very diverse. Many immigrants live in my community. It is clear to my constituents that Canada's immigration system is broken, especially with regard to family reunification. Family reunification is not a priority for the Conservative government. Recently, Canadians were appalled to hear a Conservative minister referring to family reunification as a burden to Canada. I am a product of that family reunification. The Conservatives have repeatedly undermined the importance and value of family, by making such claims. It is not only disrespectful but outright inhumane for a minister to assert this. Canada has always welcomed immigrants, fostered family bonds and provided opportunities for families to reconstruct their lives.

Every day my office receives many visits from victims who have fallen through the immigration system. I cannot provide specific cases here because it would take a long time and there are too many to list all of them. They are families who cannot be reunited at joyous occasions like weddings and birthdays, or daughters and sons who are not able to say goodbye to their dying parents in time because their temporary resident visas were refused for some obscure reason. Husbands and wives are separated for years before they can begin their lives together. Babies are born to first-time mothers who need the support of their far-away partner, and new fathers must wait months to meet their newborns.

This legislation basically would not address the needs of Canadians.

I am tired of seeing these omnibus bills come through the House. I am tired of seeing the Conservatives attempt to hide these changes that are made within the 300 pages.

This truly demonstrates that the Conservative government is out of touch with the needs of Canadians.