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.

[Barbara Pike, Chief Executive Officer, The Maritimes Energy Association]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is a pleasure and an honour to be presenting to your committee today on this important piece of legislation.

The Maritimes Energy Association is an independent not-for-profit industry organization. We represent businesses that provide goods and services to the energy sector onshore and offshore, renewable and non-renewable, in eastern Canada, and predominantly in the three maritime provinces.

While operators and producers are members of the association, our core membership is the hundreds of local companies that employ thousands of people and inject hundreds and millions of dollars into our local economies. We appreciate the opportunity to provide on their behalf the association's perspective on Bill C-5, which has become known as the offshore health and safety act.

Maritimes Energy supports the offshore oil and gas industry and encourages its continued development under a robust regulatory regime. We applaud the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for the work both do and the strict standards to which the boards hold the offshore industry.

It should be noted that safety does come first for the oil and gas industry. This is not about having a safety plan ready or collecting dust on a shelf in your office. It is about a culture of safety. It is a mantra in the industry. Every meeting starts with a safety moment. Every incident is reported. Every trend is tracked. It's not lip service; it is a mantra: safety does come first.

The Maritimes Energy Association supports Bill C-5. It formalizes offshore occupational health and safety legislation, providing clarity around what government agencies are responsible for what.

The legislation establishes a hierarchy of responsibility that makes operators ultimately responsible for all activities related to their operations with regard to occupational health and safety. It requires that operators share this OSH information with their contractors, who are our members. It grants the CNSOPB and the C-NLOPB the authority to disclose to the public information related to occupational health and safety. This adds to the principles of openness, transparency, and accountability for our offshore regulatory regime.

The bill formalizes the right of a worker to refuse work they believe constitutes a danger to themselves or others, and protects them from retaliation. As well, it covers the requirement for occupational health and safety committees.

These amendments clarify jurisdictional uncertainties. The boards will have clear authority under the accord acts to enforce all occupational health and safety requirements.

Maritimes Energy is also supportive of the formation of the advisory council, which will include representatives from industry, government, and employees to provide advice on matters related to occupational health and safety for our members.

These amendments are long overdue, but let me be clear: over the years that these amendments were being negotiated, the safety of offshore workers remained the top priority of both offshore boards. The safety of offshore workers is and always will be a top priority.

Safe operations for workers and for the environment outweigh all other considerations. Both boards have done that, even with legislation that dates back to the 1980s, legislation that obviously does not reflect today's reality. Through guidelines, through conditions on authorizations, and through sheer will, the boards have regulated Canada's east coast offshore industry. Ours is a regulatory regime that does reflect best practices, latest technologies, and most important, lessons learned.

That has not always been easy with the existing accord acts, which require that any amendments be approved by provincial and federal governments. These amendments are such an example.

While we celebrate their introduction and support their passage, we also note that they've been 13 years in the making. It has not been an easy process with the two boards and so many provincial and government departments at the table. It was a lengthy process.

Through those years, the two boards stayed focused. Through such techniques as conditions on authorizations, staff ensured that the latest advances in occupational health and safety were applied. Passage of the bill will strengthen the way the two boards already administer and enforce offshore safety activities for our members.

In closing, I want to reiterate the Maritimes Energy Association's support for Bill C-5. The amendments provide greater clarity for who is responsible for regulating offshore occupational health and safety. It strengthens our regulatory regime.

Safety is the priority of the oil and gas industry. That industry includes the operators, the supply chain, and the regulators. The responsibility for safety rests with those in the workplace: the operator, the contractor, the supervisor, and the worker, everyone in the workplace.

The regulator's responsibility is to see that those who have that responsibility are exercising that responsibility. It is not the job of the regulator to take on the job and guarantee safety.

Like the onshore, Bill C-5 provides clarity for our members working in the offshore. It enforces the requirement that the information needed by our members to exercise their responsibility is provided.

It gives to the boards the regulatory responsibility to ensure that we all—workers, contractors, and operators—make offshore occupational health and safety the top priority.

Thank you for your time, and for your invitation to present to you today.

[Lana Payne, Atlantic Director, Unifor]

Thanks, everybody, for having us here. We really appreciate the opportunity to present on Bill C-5.

I would like to give apologies, because our presentation is only now at our translation department. We will send it electronically so that folks can have it, although I did bring the English version for your translation department.

Today, as already mentioned, I am here representing Unifor, Canada's largest energy union. My remarks, I would add, are supported by both the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia federations of labour, which were both active in their provinces with respect to consultations over the last decade dealing with an offshore oil and gas safety regime.

Over 20,000 of Unifor's more than 300,000 members work in the energy sector across Canada, including over 700 workers in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore oil industry on both the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms.

It is an industry, as you in this room will know, that has known its share of tragedy over the years: the sinking of the Ocean Ranger drill rig in February 1982, and the perishing of 84 workers; and in March 2009, the crash of Cougar flight 491, with the loss of 17 workers.

The joint federal-provincial commission of inquiry report into the Ocean Ranger disaster noted that “the shock wave created by the loss was felt particularly throughout” our province. It also noted, “In that tightly-knit maritime community there were few who did not discover a link, direct or indirect, to one of those lost in the tragedy.”

Similar words and sentiments were repeated following the crash of flight 491. Perhaps this is why workplace safety in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore is such a matter of public concern as well as worker concern.

Unifor is very pleased that we finally have, with the federal enactment of this bill, real safety laws for our offshore that can be enforced rather than the guidelines that were in place for the last two decades. A safety regime tailored to the unique challenges posed by working in the offshore is a positive step, but there is still substantial room, in our opinion, for improvement with respect to building a responsive, proactive, and preventative occupational health and safety culture in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil industry.

First and foremost, it's quite unfortunate that the legislation does not address what we believe is still critically needed in our offshore, an independent, powerful, stand-alone authority in charge of safety and the environment, as was recommended by Commissioner Robert Wells, who I believe you may have heard from last week as a witness.

In this regard, Canada is still far behind industrialized oil economies such as Norway, the U.K., and Australia. Even the United States has made a move to separate safety and environmental enforcement from the management of the offshore oil and gas industry with the creation of the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

The U.K. moved in this direction after the Piper Alpha disaster and subsequent public inquiry by Judge Cullen. An explosion and fire on the U.K. platform in 1988 killed 167 men. It is still considered the world's worst offshore oil disaster. It raised the issue of competing or conflicting regulatory mandates and what we today call regulatory capture.

The inquiry recommended that the responsibility for enforcing safety should be removed from the department of energy and placed with the health and safety executive, because having both production and safety overseen by the same agency was viewed as a conflict of interest. This has now become the standard in most oil-producing countries or industrialized ones.

In 2005, Australia, also heeding the advice of Justice Cullen, created the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, an independent offshore safety agency. In 2012 they added environment to its responsibilities.

In June of this year, the head of the Australian safety and environmental agency, Jane Cutler, noted that the Piper Alpha disaster and inquiry and recommendations by Lord Cullen have had a huge impact on safety regulation and enforcement in her country.

She noted, “An entrenched industry and regulatory culture is very difficult to change even when faced by clear evidence of the need to improve the human and organizational aspects of their safety programs. There is resistance to change even when there is a clear opportunity to refocus regulatory programs to emphasize the role of human, organizational and management influences on offshore safety.”

She said that as we move forward we must ensure that “safety and environmental management are treated with the same degree of seriousness as profit and loss”.

Norway is perhaps the world leader with respect to offshore safety and the environment and in its involvement of all stakeholders in developing and implementing a world-class safety culture for the offshore oil industry. In 2004 it created the Petroleum Safety Authority. In both phase one and phase two of his inquiry report, Commissioner Wells was very clear about the need for such an independent safety authority. He said, “Vigorous oversight and prompt action can avert accidents and prevent injury and loss of life.”

Commissioner Wells was also very clear about the importance of communications and engagement with workers and the public with respect to safety in the offshore oil industry. It's been three years since the release of his report and still the full spirit and intent of his recommendations have not been implemented.

I can share some examples with you about this, but I don't think my seven minutes are going to allow for time, so if someone wants to use their question in that regard, I can certainly fill in.

There are two examples I would raise with respect to that point.

First is the July 2011 near crash, the severity of which was not reported to workers or to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador by the regulator or the operators. At that time the helicopter carrying crew offshore came within 38 feet of crashing in the ocean. It had dropped 152 metres in 32 seconds. Workers and the public only found out about the severity of this incident just this fall, two years after it occurred, and only because of the investigation by the Transportation Safety Board. It is also thought that this incident may have had a different result had the near crash occurred at night. You're probably aware that we still do not have night flying in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore. This is also an issue that I could speak to in any questions you might have.

Recommendation 12 of the Wells inquiry dealt with the issue of night flying, something that has been banned since February 2012 in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada. He did not recommend a return to night flights, but rather recommended that criteria be worked out for cases when night flying might be imperative or during an emergency. This was not exactly the direction that was given to the offshore helicopter implementation committee at the time when Commissioner Wells filed his report. Instead, quite a large caveat was allowed around recommendation 12.

Unifor believes that an independent safety and environmental authority would respond to such cases in a different and more proactive role and fashion. In our opinion, an independent, proactive, and vigilant safety and environmental authority would begin to restore the faith of workers in the role of a regulator in protecting and acting to improve safety in the offshore oil industry. It would avoid the very real danger of regulatory capture.

There are two other points I would like to raise.

The first deals with the issue of right to refuse, which is in proposed section 205.05 in clause 45 of Bill C-5. The language in Bill C-5 is very important and quite strong. We advocated improving this given the dangers in the offshore, but we do raise a matter of concern. That is, in Bill C-4, which I know your committee does not deal with, there have been changes made to the federal labour code with respect to the right to refuse. We are quite concerned that this could impact on this legislation. We would encourage you to keep the language that is currently in this bill, because it is a lot stronger than what we've seen in Bill C-4. Hopefully, you will not make amendments to that part of the bill.

My final point deals with proposed section 205.118, which is the establishment of an advisory council for the offshore oil and gas industry. It refers to a stakeholder advisory council.

We would strongly urge that both the federal and provincial governments ensure that the union representing workers offshore be invited to recommend their own representatives to this committee. This will ensure accountability.

We would also suggest that these worker representatives report back to the workplace safety committees on the council's initiatives and activities. These and other matters do not necessarily require a legislative amendment, but could be achieved in the mandate of the advisory council.

It has been our experience that such a body could provide a proactive approach to safety oversight in the offshore, similar to the tripartite structures in other oil jurisdictions, such as Norway. The Norwegian Petroleum Safety Authority notes that collaboration between employers, unions, governments, and workers are important cornerstones in efforts to establish and develop health and safety in their industry: “From an ethical perspective, it is crucial that people exposed to risk participate in decision-making processes which affect such exposure.”

How workers are currently engaged in the offshore needs to change. While we have seen some small steps in this regard, with the new management at our regulator, it is essential that structures with clearly defined roles and responsibilities be put in place to ensure an ongoing, proactive safety dialogue.

In conclusion, we are pleased that we finally have this safety regime for workers of the offshore oil industry, but we do believe that a stand-alone, powerful, and independent safety and environmental authority is not only necessary but also essential in advancing safety in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good afternoon, everyone. We're here to continue our study 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.

We have witnesses with us today, but just before we get to them, there are a couple of things I want to mention. One is that we will put aside 15 or 20 minutes at the end of today's meeting to deal with future business. The other thing is quite disturbing, and it's starting to happen all too often.

I got a call, as did some of my colleagues, from a person in the media, someone from Canadian Press, who talked about information from an in camera meeting. The person had specifics on that information and said only that it came from an opposition member. I have no way of knowing whether that's true or not, but I just want to remind all members of the committee that when things are dealt with in camera, they have to stay in camera. It's really important that we can trust that what is said in camera and what is dealt with in camera stays in camera.

It is extremely disappointing to me that this has happened. It has happened at other committees too. It has to stop. It is a breach of members' privilege. I trust that it will stop. If somebody has unintentionally disclosed something that they hadn't intended to—and I know that can happen if you get into an interview and you kind of forget what you should and shouldn't be talking about—certainly I'd be interested in hearing from whoever has done that. We can have a bit of a chat about it. I just have to believe that this isn't going to happen in the future and that what is discussed in camera will stay in camera.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

[Bernard Valcourt, Conservative, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

When things are going well, I'm the reason, and when things are going badly, they are to blame, of course.

Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. I appreciate the invitation to appear on the proposed legislation, which I had the pleasure of introducing in the House and speaking to at second reading earlier this week.

Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories Devolution Act is the final step for the federal government in devolving powers to the Northwest Territories. This legislation would bring into effect the Northwest Territories Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, which would provide the people of the Northwest Territories with the ability to make their own decisions about lands and resources in their own backyard.

I had the privilege of signing the final Devolution Agreement on behalf of the Government of Canada in Inuvik this past June, along with the Premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories, as well as five of our aboriginal partners in the Northwest Territories—Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, Gwich'in Tribal Council and Tlicho Government.

As you know, we continue to work toward a target effective date of April 1, 2014, as requested by the Premier of the Government of the Northwest Territories and agreed to by the Prime Minister and all parties to the Devolution Agreement.

Bill C-15 would also modernize and improve the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories by amending the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Territorial Lands Act.

As I just said, Bill C-15 would also modernize and improve the regulatory regime in the Northwest Territories by amending three specific acts: the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, and the Territorial Lands Act.

I wish to assure the members of this committee that we are confident this bill, as a whole, would ensure that a modern, efficient, and effective land and water regulatory system is in place when the Government of the Northwest Territories assumes increased responsibilities in respect of lands, waters, and resources by the target devolution date, effective April 1, 2014.

Our government and the Government of the Northwest Territories agree that changes brought about by Bill C-15 would ensure that northerners benefit fully from the transfer of management over lands and resources post-April 2014.

Members of this committee are already well versed, I believe, in the benefits of regulatory improvements such as the ones proposed in Bill C-15. I say this because not long ago we reviewed together—and you reviewed in detail—Bill C-47, the Northern Jobs and Growth Act, which implemented reforms to Nunavut's regulatory regime, among other pieces of legislation.

It is vitally important, we submit, that the Northwest Territories not fall behind the other two territories, or the rest of the country for that matter, in its regulatory system. The need for regulatory reform becomes even more apparent as territories acquire increased authorities and responsibilities. An effective, responsive, and modern regulatory regime ensures that the territories—specifically, in the case of Bill C-15, the Northwest Territories—will be poised to benefit fully from increased resource development and local management of lands and resources resulting from devolution.

The introduction of a modern regime in the Northwest Territories will also meet the needs of investors, developers, and employers who must rely on a clear and predictable review and assessment process to remain competitive in a global marketplace given the high cost of business in the north.

Just last week the Government of the Northwest Territories released their first ever mineral development strategy, which I recommend all members to read and look at. It speaks to the tremendous potential of the Northwest Territories to become an economic powerhouse and to the wealth of mineral resources in the territory.

The Government of the Northwest Territories, Mr. Chairman, further states that in order to address investment challenges and unlock the potential, they need a solid regulatory framework in place. If I may, I'd like to quote Minister Ramsay from the Government of the Northwest Territories, who said “Restoring a positive investment climate in the NWT is critical if we are to discover new deposits and establish new mines...”.

The legislative amendments proposed in the Northwest Territories Devolution Act respond to these criticisms that have been raised for many years now, and will position the Northwest Territories to take advantage of the many economic opportunities in the region in a sustainable and responsible manner.

As many of you know, five years ago our government appointed Mr. Neil McCrank to look into these very issues and identify potential reforms for northern regulatory regimes. Based on his recommendations, our government announced the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes.

The action plan was launched to make improvements to the existing regulatory regimes across the north to ensure that they are strong, effective, efficient, and predictable by making reviews of projects more predictable and timely; reducing duplication for project reviews; strengthening environmental protection; and finally, respecting consultation obligations with aboriginal groups.

Consultations on the action plan to improve northern regulatory regimes, including legislative amendments to the regulatory regime in the territories, have been ongoing since 2010.

In addition, our government appointed John Pollard to consult with aboriginal organizations on the possibility of restructuring the land and water boards in the Mackenzie Valley. Since that time, Mr. Pollard has held over 50 consultation meetings with aboriginal groups and organizations, co-management boards, and industry.

As you can see, we didn't arrive at the bill before you overnight. Rather, the bill you see before you today is the product of extensive consultations. These consultations involved all of the boards affected by the proposed amendments, because as you all know, some boards are indeed affected. The consultations involved industry stakeholders and representatives of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Aboriginal organizations with and without settled land claims in the territory, as well as those with relevant trans-boundary claims in the territory also participated. In all, 24 aboriginal organizations were invited to participate in the technical consultation sessions and funds were made available to assist them in doing so.

As the consultation progressed, additional policy issues and other pieces of legislation were also considered. Eventually, final legislative proposals took shape and these became the focus of technical consultation sessions ending in October of this year. Bill C-15, Northwest Territories Devolution Act, is the result of this process.

At these sessions, some participants expressed specific concerns about the proposed amendments, and the Government of Canada carefully considered these comments in the bill before you and incorporated a number of these recommended measures as a direct result of those technical sessions. For example, Bill C-15 requires that the chair of the restructured Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board consider including at least one regional nominee on smaller committees when reviewing development wholly within those regions. This amendment, first proposed by one of the aboriginal organizations that participated in the consultations, is an example of the collaboration, feedback, and accommodation that produced Bill C-15.

Another recommendation led to the redrafting of development certificate provisions to further align the proposal with similar provisions in the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, NPPAA. I think it will be evident to the committee that adoption of the Northwest Territories Devolution Act is imperative to empower the people of the Northwest Territories to shape their own future, and will ensure the long-term economic prosperity of the territory and indeed of all of Canada.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you, and I will do my best to answer members' questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Thank you, Ms. Crockatt, very much.

Thank you to both you gentlemen. I think you've provided us with some extremely helpful information. You come from incredible backgrounds, and the committee thanks you for being here today and for helping us with our study of Bill C-5.

I will suspend for just a couple of minutes.

Point of order, Mr. Gravelle.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Barnes]

As I mentioned, as we were reading Bill C-5, there were a number of questions we had around certain definitions. There are a number of definitions used regarding such terms as “danger”, for example, and what's meant by danger or how right to refusal can actually be used in practice. Some of the language was confusing to us, but we did actually, as I mentioned in my testimony, have some meetings with representatives from the federal government, the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Province of Nova Scotia to seek some further information as to the intent of some of the definitions and language in the act.

We took comfort in what we heard from those discussions and are taking additional comfort that regulations will be developed from this act. I think there's a provision in the act that indicated that the regulations have to be developed within the next five years. We feel that some of the concerns we had around definitions or some of the activities and practices will be further elaborated in those regulations. We take comfort in that as well.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

I'll ask Mr. Barnes.

You said that clarity would help in relation to some things in Bill C-5. I don't know if you'll have time in your answer to list much of what you're talking about in terms of the areas where you think clarity would help. Perhaps you could start, and maybe provide us with a list if others don't give you the opportunity to continue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

We have arranged the meeting for Monday, and I don't remember who is actually going to be here, but we'll have at least a full slate.

One other thing just quickly is whether we could approve the budget for the study of Bill C-5. That's been passed around.

Let's get on with the business of the meeting. We'll start with Ms. Crockatt for the seven-minute round, followed by Mr. Harris and then Mr. Regan.

Go ahead, please, Ms. Crockatt.

[Robert Wells, Former Inquiry Commissioner, Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members, for inviting me to be here in front of the committee to talk about offshore matters generally.

I've had an opportunity in the last three or four days to examine the bill. The bill is a complex piece of legislation. Somebody has worked hard—more than one person, I suspect—on this bill. I know that it's been under consideration for a number of years. Quite honestly, I think it's a good job and I think it will help to formalize some of the concepts that people knowledgeable about the industry and the regulatory people have thought about for some time. To see it enshrined—I hope to see it enshrined—in legislation is a good thing.

A couple of things impressed me most. One is that the bill talks about and mandates the involvement of workers in the processes of safety. That was something that was important to me during the two years and three or four months that I was the inquiry commissioner. In my report, the theme that workers must be involved emerges constantly. Now, I was concerned with helicopters, not safety on the offshore installations, but in both cases workers must be involved, and the fact that there's legislation going to involve them formally, I think, is a very, very good thing.

Another thing impressed me. I have great confidence in the wisdom of non-experts. We need experts in this complex age very much, but experts should be advisers. There's no better illustration probably than Parliament itself, which has expert advice on many things, but in the end decisions are made by governments and parliaments that are not necessarily expert in particular fields.

The idea of advisory committees, to me, is a very welcome thing to see in this. My own report recommends that advisory committees be established to have expert advice but nonetheless to guide the experts, if you like, or guide the decision makers, more importantly, in the important decisions that they have to take. Maybe I get this from years of dealing with juries as a counsel and as a judge, but I have the greatest respect for the wisdom that ordinary men and women have that comes forth when they're asked to consider things. These two things I mention.

Of course, the other thing this act does is to bring the offshore into the fold of occupational health and safety generally, because the offshore has been off on its own in the past. This brings them into the broader context of occupational health and safety. That's important in another way also, in that it helps in the development of a safety culture or safety cultures. Safety cultures are one of the most important things. They're hard to define. Some of the writers on safety have described them simply as the way we do things around here—but that's an extremely important component of safety. I think the offshore involvement with other safety cultures will both strengthen other safety cultures and allow them in the offshore to be strengthened by that involvement. That's extremely important, I think, in the safety field.

I won't say more about this in the short time in which I'm making general remarks, but I want to pay tribute to the people in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board for the progress that has been made in the last four and a half years since the tragic accident in March 2009.

Perhaps the most important in my mind has been the raising of the search and rescue capability provided by the operators to the world-class standard, because at the time of the accident it wasn't at the world-class standard. There was no dedicated helicopter. The regular transport helicopter had to be refitted, seats taken out, and hoists put in to become a search and rescue helicopter. On the day of the accident, that took about 50 minutes, so the search and rescue helicopter didn't get in the air for about 50 to 55 minutes. That's a long time in search and rescue when people are in the North Atlantic, either as a result of a crash or a ditching.

At any rate, that was so important to me as I began to learn in the inquiry process that, as you probably know, I made an interim recommendation that a start on that process should be made immediately. The C-NLOPB responded and the oil operators responded and last spring.... It took a lot longer than I thought, taking about a year. You can't buy one of these helicopters as you can buy a car, for example. Then you need other things. You need an important hangar with all the facilities. You need facilities from bedrooms to cooking facilities to whatever in the hangar because you're going to have people there 24/7 when they're on duty. Then one needs permission to build a new hangar.

All this was expensive, but the oil operators came through and last spring was a very significant day, and for me personally, too, when I went to the opening of that facility, because that marked a transition. It brought the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board to a world-class standard with a 20-minute response time. I think that was a marvellous thing and I congratulate C-NLOPB, the oil operators, and the industry generally for making that happen.

Other things have also happened in the last three or four years. There has been greater worker involvement in committees, particularly in safety forums, which are ongoing. I've been to two of them. I went to one two or three weeks ago. I was invited to go and the discussion was very fruitful and important and worker involvement was there. I'm glad to see in Bill C-5 that workers and their unions and representatives of safety committees are involved. These are good things.

Survival suits, as Mr. Barnes has said, have been improved substantially, and that is a good thing. The other important thing that has been done is that the C-NLOPB has now got top-notch aviation expertise in-house, and also outside the house that it can call on. That is of fundamental importance because up to then, the C-NLOPB had no expertise in aviation. It relied on the operators. It relied on Transport Canada, and that's fine as far as it goes, but in a dangerous offshore environment, which we have in the North Atlantic, you need expert advice and knowledge right at the scene of aviation of what's possible and what should be and on what C-NLOPB, as an institution, has to watch for and be on top of.

These are good things that have happened. There are many more just in the training.

When I took the training it was in a pool with a temperature of probably 20 degrees or something like that, and it was calm. That didn't make it much easier to go into the dunker, which is an experience for anyone. But now, after ExxonMobil—if I'm correct—provided $3.8 million to bring the training facility up, I visited it after the work was done and it was quite something, with simulated thunder and lightning, waves, storms of rain and wind. It was as realistic as anything could be. If I had been invited on that day to take the training, I might not have done it.

We have made a lot of progress, and this is probably the first time in a formal setting such as this that I, as the former commissioner, have been able to pay tribute to what has been done.

Now, I doubt if you will be asking me all that many questions on the bill itself. If you do, I'll do my best to answer them, if you give me the reference and what to look at, but something that took 10 years to prepare can hardly be digested in three, four, or five days. Anyway, that's that.

I suspect you have other questions for me in other areas, which I'll do my best to address. But thank you very much for this opportunity to make an opening statement.

[Paul Barnes, Manager, Atlantic Canada, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee.

As you know, my name is Paul Barnes. I am the Atlantic Canada manager for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, or as it's commonly referred to, CAPP. CAPP's head office is located in Calgary, Alberta, but they also have a regional office for Atlantic Canada located in St. John's, Newfoundland, which is where I am based—and I should mention that's where I'm from as well. Given that we have two MPs from St. John's in the room, I figured I'd do a shout out to them.

CAPP represents Canada's upstream oil and gas sector—those companies that are involved in exploration, development, and production of oil and gas. Our members find and develop over 90% of Canada's petroleum resources all across the country. Together they invest over $50 billion annually, and they employ more than 500,000 Canadians. In Atlantic Canada alone, our industry directly employs over 5,600 people and supports over 800 local supply and service companies. Cumulative investment in the region has been totalling close to $40 billion since 1996.

The oil and gas industry also accounts for 30% of Newfoundland and Labrador's gross domestic product, GDP, and there remains significant growth potential in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, both onshore and offshore.

We appreciate the opportunity to offer CAPP's perspectives today regarding Bill C-5, Offshore Health and Safety Act, as it's commonly referred to.

While we believe there are areas where greater clarity in the legislation's wording would be beneficial, we are supportive of the intent and spirit of the legislation. We believe it is another positive step in bringing clarity and efficiency to the regulatory regime that governs the offshore petroleum industry in Atlantic Canada. We have met with provincial and federal government representatives since the bill was introduced and have received additional clarity on some of the legislative language. We expect that more clarity will be provided once regulations associated with this act are drafted. Today I will outline CAPP's views on Bill C-5, and to provide some important context to this discussion, I'll also touch on the overall subject of offshore safety.

With respect to CAPP's views on Bill C-5, over the past several years, CAPP and our members who are active in Atlantic Canada offshore participated in the government's consultation process related to amendments to the accord acts to address occupational health and safety. We appreciate the role the offshore petroleum boards also played in this process, for even though their mandate is not to develop legislation, they did provide considerable expertise and advice on the subject to the legislative writers, which has resulted in what we believe is a comprehensive legal framework that achieves the same protection for offshore workers that onshore workers currently enjoy.

We support government's desires to formalize offshore occupational health and safety legislation as described in Bill C-5. It provides industry with clarity on what government agencies are responsible for regulating occupational health and safety. Joint jurisdiction of the federal and provincial governments of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador is now recognized. In this process, consideration has been given to an effective and efficient use of regulatory resources, avoiding duplication and overlap between different governments and different government agencies.

This bill also reflects a hierarchy of responsibility in clarifying the role of governments, the role of regulators, the role of employers, and the role of employees. It recognizes that the oil and gas operator is ultimately responsible for ensuring worker safety in the offshore environment.

CAPP also welcomes the establishment of an advisory council that will include representatives from industry, government, and employees to provide advice on matters related to occupational health and safety. We look forward to providing industry representatives with seats on such a committee. We also understand that governments will be consulting industry as they continue to process the drafting of regulations related to these amendments, and CAPP and our members look forward to being consulted as part of that process.

I now wish to provide some context for what is meant by safety in the offshore oil and gas industry.

Safety comes to mind first in the oil and gas industry. In the offshore, where factors like harsh weather, icebergs, and remoteness of work locations provide added challenges, our members are diligent in equipping workers with the skills and tools needed to keep themselves and their co-workers safe. All of our offshore operations are guided by comprehensive health and safety plans that must be developed before any offshore activity is approved.

The Canada-Nova Scotia and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore petroleum boards audit these company health and safety plans, and frequently inspect offshore work locations. The boards have the power to shut down operations that are unsafe.

Our industry is committed to continuous improvement. We support research to test and advance new safety equipment and regularly assess the safety equipment and training provided to offshore workers as new research and technology becomes available.

We work to eliminate or control potential hazards and to keep our workplaces and employees safe. We must also ensure that our employees are ready to respond effectively in an emergency situation. Offshore workers receive comprehensive safety training focusing on emergency response and survival, which must be repeated at regular intervals to ensure that they have the skills required to effectively handle an emergency situation.

The industry views training as a critical component of emergency preparedness and response. Working with regulators, drilling companies, offshore worker representatives, and training institutions through the Atlantic Canada training and qualifications committee, our industry regularly assesses our training standards and ensures that processes are in place to ensure that the training available in Atlantic Canada meets the intent of the standard and is of good quality.

We also work to ensure that the safety equipment designed for and provided to offshore workers in Atlantic Canada is the best available for the offshore environment they are working in.

One example is the introduction of the helicopter underwater emergency breathing apparatus, also known as the HUEBA. In 2009 the offshore petroleum industry in Atlantic Canada implemented this device, which is mandatory for travel by helicopter offshore. The HUEBA gives the user an additional capacity of breathable air so that he or she has more time to escape from a partially or totally submerged helicopter in an emergency situation. The HUEBA is basically a compressed air device, like the small scuba tank used in diving. This is just one example of a tool that has been implemented by the offshore industry to enhance safety.

A more recent example, in fact one that is ongoing right now, relates to the helicopter passenger transportation suits that are worn by offshore workers when travelling by helicopters offshore. In 2012 the Canadian General Standards Board published a revised standard for helicopter passenger transportation suits.

CAPP and our members participated fully in the CGSB review of this standard, which resulted in an improved published standard for future suits, as it requires suits to be tested in more realistic conditions such as colder water, amongst other things. Oil and gas operators in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia are at the end of a process now to select a contractor who will develop these helicopter passenger transportation suits for Atlantic Canada offshore, built to this new standard.

CAPP and our members engage the offshore workforce through joint occupational health and safety committees on every offshore installation to ensure that worker feedback is part of the process of revising safety and training standards and introducing new equipment. This process has proven to be an important aspect of how CAPP advances important safety files and ensures that workforce feedback is part of the process.

As an industry, we will continue to advance research and will continue to challenge ourselves to continually improve performance.

To conclude, I want to reiterate CAPP's support for Bill C-5. From industry's perspective, the amendments provide greater clarity related to who's responsible for regulating offshore occupational health and safety. This has now been formalized into legislation.

The proposed legislative amendments will also further strengthen Canada's leadership in offshore safety.

As an industry, we will continue to work to ensure that our workplaces are as safe as possible; will continue to focus on training as an essential component of our safety plans and programs; and will continue to assess the safety equipment and tools we provide to our workforce in order to reduce or eliminate hazards and to ensure they are fully prepared to respond in the event of an emergency.

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you today. I look forward to any questions you may have afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Leon Benoit]

Good afternoon everyone.

We're here today, after votes, to continue our study of 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.

We have two witnesses here today. The first, from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, is Mr. Paul Barnes, manager for Atlantic Canada. Welcome, Mr. Barnes.

We have, as an individual, the Honourable Robert Wells, former inquiry commissioner of the Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry. Welcome to you, Mr. Wells.

We'll go ahead as usual. We'll start with a presentation from each of the witnesses, and then we'll start our questions and comments from members.

We'll go with the order on the agenda, starting with Mr. Barnes, manager for Atlantic Canada for the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. Go ahead, please, sir.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Tessier, in relation to the provisions of Bill C-5 applying to the potential drilling in the St. Lawrence basin, which wasn't under your jurisdiction, it would seem to me there might be concerns raised, for instance, by other provinces—Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick—and of course there's no agreement at the moment that's been adopted between the federal government and these provinces in relation to this activity.

Do you see any problems with implementing this bill in the gulf in view of this?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

In relation to the fact that both Bill C-4 and Bill C-5 propose to amend section 144 of the Canada Labour Code, but they do so in different ways and for different reasons, if Bill C-4 is enacted before Bill C-5, then section 144 of the Canada Labour Code will be inconsistent with other provisions of that act.

I wonder why there is no provision that would coordinate the competing amendments to the Canada Labour Code. Do you have any information on what's happening there in terms of coordinating the two?