Bill C-5 (Historical)

Offshore Health and Safety Act

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 enactment amends the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act (the “Accord Acts”) in order to increase the level of safety and transparency of offshore petroleum activities.
The main purpose of the amendments is to establish a new occupational health and safety regime in the offshore areas.
In addition, it amends the Accord Acts to, most notably,
(a) ensure that occupational health and safety officers, special officers, conservation officers and operational safety officers have the same powers for the administration and enforcement of the Accord Acts;
(b) clarify that the new occupational health and safety regime applies to the transportation of persons who are in transit to, from or between workplaces in the offshore areas;
(c) require that any occupational health and safety regulations that apply to the transportation of persons who are in transit to, from or between workplaces in the offshore areas be made on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport; and
(d) authorize each of the Canada–Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board to publicly disclose information related to occupational health and safety if it considers it to be in the public interest.
It amends the Hazardous Materials Information Review Act to enable health and safety officers to get privileged information and to enable employers subject to the Accord Acts to apply to the Chief Screening Officer for exemptions from disclosure requirements in the same manner as employers under the Canada Labour Code. It also amends the Access to Information Act to prohibit the disclosure of certain information.
It amends the Canada Labour Code to closely follow the Accord Acts with respect to the time frame for the institution of proceedings, and with respect to prohibitions on the sharing of information and on testimony.
It also amends certain Acts and regulations to make terminological changes that are required as a result of certain amendments to the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the third time and passed.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-5. This bill addresses long-standing gaps in occupational health and safety standards in Atlantic offshore oil and gas development.

The bill amends the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord in order to enshrine the occupational health and safety regime in law. This is an important measure that the NDP has long been calling for. This is a very important bill for workers who do dangerous work in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore.

Not so long ago, these activities took place in shallow water close to shore. Now, we have oil rigs hundreds of kilometres from shore. It takes two to three hours to get to the rigs and back by helicopter. The work is done in extreme weather. It goes without saying that it is dangerous. These brave workers do this work to support themselves and their families. However, this sector also benefits Atlantic Canada's economy and the federal government.

As usual, bills like this come about after tragedy strikes. In this case, I am referring to the Ocean Ranger drilling platform, which sank off the shore of Newfoundland in 1982, taking 84 workers with it.

The royal commission that followed criticized the industry for problems with safety training and being lax with inspections. People believed that the government had implemented regulations to reduce risk. However, the offshore was never subject to provincial safety regulations.

There is a clear link between this tragedy and the one that occurred recently in Lac-Mégantic.

Prioritizing profit, the government let a company self-regulate. That decision led to tragedy, and the government betrayed the people's trust yet again.

Let us not forget the Deepwater Horizon. In 2010, neglect resulted in the death of 11 workers and the worst offshore oil spill in history. The Gulf of Mexico is still suffering the consequences of that incident.

In other words, we cannot pretend that will never happen again. The government must make laws. The NDP supports the federal-provincial collaboration that resulted in Bill C-5.

Bill C-5 is the outcome of over a decade of negotiation that began in 2001 between the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

However, I am disappointed that the Conservative government does not work with the provincial and territorial governments on other issues often enough. I am also disappointed that my colleagues opposite still seem to cling to a laissez-faire ideology that benefits corporations but puts our communities and the environment at risk.

Regulation in the offshore oil industry focuses on performance. In other words, the regulatory body drafts a plan and sets safety objectives, and companies decide how to go about achieving those objectives.

In contrast, the regulatory regime set out in Bill C-5 dictates both the standards and the means to achieve them. Compliance is mandatory. That is why I support this bill.

The New Democrats have been calling for this kind of power for years. However, the bill does not act on recommendation 29 of the Honourable Robert Wells' offshore helicopter safety inquiry. That inquiry was held after a helicopter crash that, as we all know, killed 17 workers.

The Wells report contained a number of recommendations, including the creation of an independent safety regulator. Bill C-5 does not provide for the creation of an independent and stand-alone safety regulator, nor does it provide for autonomous safety divisions within the petroleum boards.

It is disappointing that the Government of Canada did not act on this report even though Newfoundland, Justice Wells, the unions concerned, the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour and many other stakeholders concerned about the offshore health and safety regime urged it to do so.

Thus, the NDP's efforts to ensure that the bill is reviewed in five years were rejected by the government at committee stage. An NDP federal government would work with the provinces to establish these measures in order to further strengthen the health and safety regime for Atlantic offshore workers.

Nevertheless, we will support Bill C-5 because it should have been passed a long time ago and it is an important victory for the labour movement. The NDP has been calling for a legislated offshore safety regime for years. Bill C-5 protects offshore workers at least as well as onshore workers. It also protects employees' right to refuse to work in dangerous conditions and to be protected from reprisals.

This bill is timely. In fact, Shell and BP are exploring along the Nova Scotia coast for the first time since the Gulf of Mexico spill in 2010. However, it is unfortunate that the federal government prevented the implementation of even better protection for worker safety by not creating a stand-alone safety regulator. The NDP is determined to work with the provinces to that end.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his excellent speech.

Does he think that there will be fewer offshore accidents or none at all as a result of this bill?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. I want to point out that he does an excellent job in his riding.

To answer his question, I would say that this bill is a step in the right direction, but we could do even more to protect the public and the environment, which is very important. We proposed amendments. We want to pass this bill because it is a step in the right direction.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill and that is very good. We are improving working conditions for offshore oil and gas workers.

However, there is something I want to understand. The government introduced a bill to improve occupational health and safety. However, the oil needs to be transported, put on trains and shipped all over the place for Canadians to be able to use it.

What does my colleague think about the government's approach to rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods?

It is good to improve occupational health and safety conditions. However, what about our constituents who are in danger every day because of the dangerous goods being transported in rail cars and on tracks that this government has completely abandoned?

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. She does fantastic work for her riding.

To prevent other catastrophes like the one that happened in Lac-Mégantic, the government must make the rules, not let companies do it. That applies to oil pipelines and trains because that is not their goal. As we have already pointed out, their goal is to make a profit. We want to make sure that people and the environment are protected. For all of those reasons, the government has to make the rules, not leave it up to the companies.

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

Mr. Speaker, would the member for Brome—Missisquoi care to comment on the failure of the government to accept a recommendation and motion of an amendment to review our desire to have a stand-alone safety agency instead of the C-NLOPB? That was offered but refused. Do you know why the government would refuse such a review of this act and legislation to see how it was working?

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

I do not know, but possibly the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi might.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, and I thank him for the amazing work he does in his riding.

I do not know what it is like to be in their shoes, but I think our friends opposite rejected a very reasonable amendment because they are not used to collaborating with the provinces and territories. Only by working together with the provinces will we succeed in providing adequate protection.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and other related acts. The bill has been a long time coming. It is a positive and necessary step forward to improve worker safety in the oil and gas industry in general.

My mind drifts back to the Ocean Ranger disaster. When I was a teenager living on South Mountain in the Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia, we did not have a TV, but my family was glued to the radio listening to reports of that tragedy on February 1984. There were 84 lives lost and no survivors. I know that the Ocean Ranger tragedy really prompted a hard look at how we regulate the oil and gas industry, especially offshore, but increasingly closer to shore.

For me, the Ocean Ranger tragedy was a dramatic coming of age event that really forged my first thoughts about what government does. It really helped a lot of Canadians make a connection between worker safety, the oil industry, and the importance of what government can do to make sure it protects workers and the public. This kind of tragedy cannot happen again.

I am glad we can support the bill and the work of the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia governments in putting this in place. I feel that the bill would go some way to improving safety for those who work in the oil industry and would make sure that we never again have a similar disaster.

The bill also shows what can be achieved when the federal and provincial governments work together to further the public good, something that happens all too infrequently under this government. In fact, I know that the government often refuses to talk to provincial governments about matters of such importance. However, in this case, it has been prompted to act.

I would like to expand my speech a little to comment on the attitudes of some of the companies involved in this industry, why this legislation may not go far enough, and why we need to improve or have even better regulation of the oil and gas industry in Canada in general.

Because I am from the west coast, representing the beautiful riding of Burnaby—Douglas, the examples I am going to use are from the west coast.

While Bill C-5 would increase safety in the oil and gas industry on the east coast, there is still much work to do on the west coast. As we know, two companies have applied to build two massive new pipelines through British Columbia. They are Enbridge and Kinder Morgan. These two companies plan to move almost two million barrels per day of bitumen-based crude oil by tanker through B.C. waters to foreign ports. This would mean approximately 600 new supertankers off the B.C. coast, with no extra protection.

The biggest oil port in the world is in Saudi Arabia. It moves about nine million barrels a day of oil. In combination, if Kitimat and Burnaby ports were to be expanded, we would be close to two million barrels a day of oil, which would move us within the top 10 exporting regions in the world, which is a sizeable expansion of our exports. In fact, although we are considering these new pipelines and an expansion of tanker traffic, the government is really going in the opposite direction of what it should be doing, and instead of improving safety measures on the west coast, it is putting British Columbians at risk.

For example, the Conservatives closed the Kitsilano Coast Guard station in February 2013, which was the busiest Coast Guard station in the country. The government also closed the Port of Vancouver monitoring centre, which provided eyes on port traffic. When we think we are going to be increasing oil tanker traffic to the extent the government seeks to do, this really seems to be going in the opposite direction.

Instead of closing Coast Guard bases, one would think we would be opening new ones, and instead of closing monitoring stations, one would think we would be expanding those facilities. Instead, we have gone in the opposite direction, making tanker traffic less safe on the B.C. coast rather than making it more safe. Actions such as closing these facilities cannot do anything but weaken safety on the west coast. It really seems absurd, considering that companies are proposing to move millions of barrels of oil by tanker.

These two pipeline projects are of course highly contentious and vehemently opposed by local communities, including the cities of Kitimat, Burnaby, and Vancouver and many other municipalities up and down the coast. Over 130 first nations have signed an accord against the two pipelines, citing safety as one of their main concerns.

It would appear that the only supporters of these pipelines are the Conservatives, who have stated on a number of occasions that they want to put in these pipelines, ram them through British Columbia.

The Liberal leader, on February 9, in the Calgary edition of Metro, stated:

I am...very interested in the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline that is making its way through. I certainly hope that we’re going to be able to get that pipeline approved.

Here in the House, both the Liberals and the Conservatives are in overwhelming favour of these pipelines, where most British Columbians have huge concerns. Most of these concerns are related to the safety issues, impacts on the environment, worker safety, and public safety in general.

New regulations are put in place because oftentimes the companies will try to get away with as much as they can, and it is up to governments to make sure that they are safe.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I certainly appreciate my fellow member from British Columbia, but I think he has gone off topic on pipelines, et cetera. I think he should be keeping in mind that this chamber is addressing the legislation that is before us, not other issues that may be quite important to the member but not necessarily pertinent to the issue here, so it is on relevance—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Rising on the same point of order, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I do think that Conservative members will have to tolerate speeches that are not on the point of the legislation when the Conservative majority has chosen to label the legislation with a title that does not match its content.

This bill is not about safeguarding our seas and skies, so if members choose to address the topic of safeguarding our seas, I do not think it can be called out of order.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

First of all, I recognize that the Standing Orders of this place do require that members address the matter that is before the House and that they keep their comments relevant to that. Having said that, as I have also said many times in the past, there is significant latitude allowed to members to talk about different aspects relating to the bill.

Finally, some of the commentary, if it relates to the substance of the matter, ranges into the issue of debate as opposed to a point of order.

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.