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.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. I think it is interesting that he is asking me this question, even though the Liberal government of the day did not do anything. Now it is the opposition that is being blamed. When blame falls on the Conservative government, the Conservatives blame the Liberals, and the Liberals are now blaming us as the opposition party. This is interesting.

I am going to answer this question, which is not entirely related to the issue before us today—but I appreciate it anyway. The Minister of Transport says that 10 years is too long. The idea of 10 years came from the United States, who said they were going to try to replace the cars in 10 years. CN told us yesterday said it was going to replace the old DOT-111 cars within four years. Irving Oil told us they would do it within a year. Today we heard in committee from a manufacturer of DOT-111 cars who thought that the number of cars that needed to be replaced was around 80,000.

Unlike the Minister of Transport, I do not have any information about the discussions the government has with all the parties involved. However, what I am asking is that the minister give us some kind of timeframe, in light of all the information and authority she has. In fact, despite having held discussions, having commissioned a report on the DOT-111 railway cars and having received TSB recommendations, we still do not have a timeframe. It is necessary to take action. The time has come to put a figure to the timeframe.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed hearing the statement by my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie. This bill has been studied in committee and an amendment was put forward by the NDP members that sit on the committee. The amendment would have required the minister to table a report in Parliament within five years on the enforcement and implementation of the act and on whether or not it was necessary to establish a stand-alone, independent offshore safety regulator.

I have been thinking about this since I studied the bill and I still cannot find an explanation. Could my colleague enlighten me on this issue ?

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Gatineau for her question and for all the work she has done. I have worked with her, and it is quite amazing.

Her question is accurate and relevant. I can say that we have suggested that the situation be reviewed in a few years.

My colleague from Nickel Belt sits on the committee. He explained that the members of the Conservative Party who sit on the committee were not even interested in discussing the issue. As I understand it, it is not really very interesting to them. It comes back to what I was saying in my statement: every time the opposition wants to make an amendment, the Conservative government is not interested, even though the amendment is supported by experts who say that it would be an improvement. I have seen this clearly because I have sat on a number of committees. I think this is pure partisan politics, simply because if an amendment comes from the opposition the Conservatives think it is a bad idea. This is unfortunately an old, worn-out government. I think we are going to replace it in 2015.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in the House to join with my NDP colleagues, since we are the only ones taking part in this debate, in supporting Bill C-5 at third reading.

First, however, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Gatineau.

We in the NDP believe that Bill C-5 is particularly important, because it is intended to correct major problems in the current legislation and in the authority for making regulations associated with occupational health and safety standards in the offshore oil and gas industry.

In concrete terms, all this means that passing Bill C-5 would enshrine safety practices in the legislation. The employer would assume primary responsibility for occupational health and safety and would be required to take part in implementing and co-ordinating the measures needed to ensure employee safety.

For their part, employees would now have the opportunity to refuse to perform an activity that they have reason to believe is not safe. This provides some critical autonomy for our workers, who are always concerned about their safety and security in the workplace. Employees would also be protected from reprisals if they report a situation they consider unsafe.

Bill C-5 is a necessary and constructive improvement in occupational employee health and safety in offshore areas, and this is why the NDP is proud to support it. Employee protection has always been, and will always be, a priority for the NDP, in every field of work.

In our view, it does not matter whether the workers are land-based or working in offshore sites. They deserve the same level of protection. The provinces have the same view. Back in the day, the NDP government of Nova Scotia put a great deal of work into this issue. Newfoundland and Labrador also worked hard and sent numerous requests to the federal government for this kind of occupational safety system to be implemented. Of course, the NDP in Newfoundland and Labrador was very active in pushing the analysis and discussion on this issue forward.

Clearly, we in the NDP are going to support all the efforts that have been made by the provinces and we are delighted to see the improvements that will be implemented when the bill is passed.

The amendments we are talking about here were requested over 10 years ago by the provinces, primarily Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as I mentioned. It was high time that the federal government considered this issue. It is a matter that will also become more and more important for Quebec, as there is more and more discussion of oil development off our coastline, regardless of any personal views on the subject. These could also be important measures for Quebec workers, who may well be working in these areas in the future, here again, notwithstanding anyone’s personal opinion about oil development per se.

We in the NDP would also like to commend the federal government and the provinces for their willingness to work together, which made it possible to arrive at the bill that is before us today. It is a sign of openness to dialogue and co-operation that I personally find quite surprising on the part of the Conservatives, as we have grown accustomed to a great deal more inflexibility and intolerance from them. Nevertheless, I hope they have developed a taste for this new approach and that they will decide to continue along this path. Let us think positively. We can always hope that this method of working in co-operation with, rather than against, the provinces will be a model for dealing with any future issues they will have to address together with the provinces.

These days, safety is a major concern. With a great deal of effort, we got back to the issue of workforce training. Here again, however, there were disputes, because the Conservatives’ approach was simply to bully the provinces, asking them to do what they were told, failing which they would no longer support them. They would not get the funding requested and would be the losers. Be that as it may, I will continue to encourage them. I will therefore ask the Conservatives to maintain this admirable receptiveness with the provinces in the future.

With respect to the bill now before us, it has to be said that it is not a cure-all, and does not resolve all the existing problems. Despite the efforts of the NDP and the repeated requests from the provinces, Bill C-5 still does not contain a provision to establish an independent offshore safety regulator.

This measure had originally been proposed by Justice Robert Wells in his 2010 report. He stated the following in the report: “I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire Report”.

This was recommendation 29, which called for the creation of a new, independent, stand-alone agency to regulate offshore safety. This recommendation is important, because it would finally lead to the establishment of a single independent agency responsible for regulating safety.

The issue came into prominence following an accident that caused a death. It was in that context that the debate focused on the creation of such an independent agency. It is very important for us in the NDP, and unfortunately it is not included in the current bill.

In comments made a little earlier by my colleagues, both Conservative and Liberal, I heard complaints about the fact that we were still discussing this bill, that we were wasting our time and that we should pass it at once. I wonder where they were 12 years ago, when the negotiations began.

Both Liberal and Conservative members have taken this issue lightly, and done absolutely nothing. In their place, I too would wish to avoid the subject, I would not want to talk about it, and I would want it to be voted on as quickly as possible in order to forget about what was not done in the past.

I found it was unfortunate to be hearing these comments, because the experts who testified before the committee made clear the importance of having such an agency, in order to put in place the necessary measures to protect our offshore workers. Unfortunately, we have come this far and still nothing has been done. Elected representatives in Newfoundland and Labrador, among others, have deplored the fact that the agency is not included in the bill.

An NDP government would take all the necessary action, and hold all the necessary discussions, to work with the provinces to set up such an independent agency. In our view, it is a priority. Yet it does not seem to have been a priority for the current government or for the previous Liberal governments.

In 2015, the political landscape will have changed, as we will have a New Democrat government that will at last be able to achieve the practical results so long awaited by the offshore workers. This is really important to us.

In his remarks a little earlier, my colleague from Brossard—La Prairie mentioned that the NDP had proposed an amendment in committee to try to improve the bill. The amendment called for a provision to ensure that the effectiveness of the legislation would be reviewed five years after it was passed. Therefore, it would have been possible to see whether it could be improved, possibly through the creation of an independent agency, as recommended by Justice Wells. We are not yet at that point.

I do not wish to say that the Conservatives are acting in bad faith, but I see no other reason. We are therefore going to insist on this. Because of the bad faith of the government in place, the amendment was defeated. The result therefore is a law that is somewhat lacking, but nevertheless represents a definite improvement for the workers.

With a view to additional protections for those working offshore, the NDP can support the bill. As I was saying, it is unfortunate that we were not successful in resolving all the problems that had nevertheless been made very quite clear by the provinces and by numerous experts. Some years ago, one of those problems was directly demonstrated by the death of a worker, yet we are still engaged in the same debate. However, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has stated that the current federal government clearly did not have the desire to establish such an agency.

In spite of everything, being able to incorporate better measures in the legislation for occupational health and safety is a significant step in the right direction. Given the expanding development of offshore oil and gas, this step should have been taken a long time ago. We are nevertheless getting the desired results. That is good. The NDP is very proud to support this bill.

I also wish to reiterate my pride in the work done by New Democrat MLAs in Newfoundland and Labrador and the then NDP government of Nova Scotia. They worked very hard to achieve this outcome. They can be proud of the work they did.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I realized something listening to this debate, and I wonder if my colleague would agree with me. I have the impression that the most important thing for this government is to get this bill passed as soon as possible and never talk about it, in case people realize that Justice Wells' main recommendation was not included.

Those who go and work on oil platforms in the future risk not coming home if the helicopter gearbox is out of oil. When the Conservatives do not want to do something, they drag their feet, they take their time, they do only half a job and they do it at the last minute. That is my impression. What does my colleague think?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Laurentides—Labelle for this relevant question.

Perhaps the Conservatives do hope to pass this bill quickly and quietly, before Canadians really notice. However, thanks to the hard work of all my NDP colleagues, that will not happen. People know what is going on, and provincial elected representatives have also criticized the fact that that recommendation was not included in the bill. This is a problem.

The NDP members took the time to rise in the House to discuss this issue and shed some light on the problem, unlike the Conservative and Liberal members, who preferred to stay out of the debate altogether. We were able to shed some light on this problem.

Rest assured that in 2015, an NDP government will tackle the issue while working with the provinces, which is what should have been done all along.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for her speech.

I wonder if she would care to comment on the fact that the minister responsible for this bill, the Minister of Labour, was asked three times this morning why the government refused to accept an amendment to review this provision for an independent safety board in five years' time, as was proposed by the NDP, and we did not get an answer. There was no explanation given as to why that review would not be permitted and put into the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I find it disappointing to hear such a thing. The minister should be able to answer that question.

He should have a good reason for rejecting an opposition amendment. If the Conservatives cannot justify their decision, there is a problem with it. This falls under the minister's discretionary power. This is not a decision that was taken in the best interests of our workers. I would like to ask the minister the question and get an answer, but I am not holding out hope. However, it is important to understand the reason behind this decision. If there are any problems, we need to debate them in Parliament to try to convince members from the other parties. However, the other parties do not want to truly look at this issue. We need to convince them to review the legislation and try to improve it. We will have to start the entire legislative process over. I find it very disappointing that the NDP's amendment was not seen for its merits and adopted, as it should have been.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech this afternoon. I have a general question for her that is related to what we are talking about today. What is the NDP's record when it comes to protecting workers? I am not just talking about offshore workers, but all workers. What is the NDP's record on protecting workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his very relevant question, which will allow me to get back to a topic I touched on briefly in my speech: how important it is to the NDP to protect workers' rights. This topic has always been a priority for our party, unlike the Conservatives, who are constantly criticizing us for defending workers' rights. These rights are very important.

Without protections to guarantee workplace health and safety, workers will end up getting injured, being absent and being subject to potential abuse from employers. We have to keep all of that in mind. Unfortunately, the Conservative government seems to consistently—if not constantly—be ignoring that.

If workers want someone to stand up for them in the House of Commons, they have no choice but the NDP in 2015.

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say once again publicly that I am impressed by your French. As the member for Gatineau, I can say that Quebeckers really appreciate it.

I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C-5, just as I am pleased to do so at every opportunity. I do it as often as I can, so that I can give a voice to the people of Gatineau. They did not elect an MP so that she could just come here and sit back and rubber stamp all the government's bills. That is not right and that is not at all the promise I made at the time.

I would like to begin by congratulating my NDP colleagues who worked so hard on this bill. Considering all the interest shown by the Conservatives and the Liberals, I thought it was just a tiny, short bill, until I saw the 270 pages and I realized that this is an extremely important bill—I am hearing this everywhere I go—and above all, extremely complex.

I will never accept the moving of any time allocation motions in the House, which is why we object every time the government does it. Once or twice could probably be justified, but when we get to the 60th time, we begin to wonder whether this is part of a standard procedure to prohibit debate.

I will also not accept hearing in the House, in questions from the Conservative or other benches, that if we vote in favour of a bill it should automatically move to the next stage. Why? The mandate given to us by voters is to express opinions on bills on their behalf. As the opposition, and especially as the official opposition, we are also required to do the work that the government sometimes refuses to do because it is imposing its vision by virtue of its majority.

I often remind members that this strong Conservative majority was elected by 39% of the population, and 61% of the population would like to have their say once in a while. Sometimes, our opinions are heard by even a certain percentage of the 39%. We cannot simply rubber stamp bills.

However, it is not surprising coming from this government. Yesterday, in another context quite similar to this one, my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord asked the Minister of Justice a question regarding another time allocation. The Conservatives wanted to prevent debate and it seems they are criticizing us for wanting to express our opinion on Bill C-5. This is what the member said to the minister:

I have been working on this issue for two and a half years, and I have not yet been able to speak to Bill C-13. There are so many of us in the NDP who wish to speak to this that there is a good chance that I will not be able to as a result of this time allocation motion.

The member was asking whether the minister would be interested in what he had to say about this bill. The minister was frank and forthright in his reply. I will quote him word for word from beginning to end, unlike the Minister of State for Democratic Reform who quotes selectively so that the information provided is incomplete and makes no sense. The entire quote is as follows:

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, no. I do not feel inclined to hear from the member.

That says it all. I spent the night thinking about that comment and telling myself that I, a woman and MP for Gatineau, elected by my constituents in 2011, would proudly rise to speak to Bill C-5.

This bill is of interest not only to the government and the Minister of Labour, but also to all of those elected to this House, and it is our duty to discuss it. Nothing exasperates me more than having to read rulings like Whaling, Nadon and all of the others that we have been receiving recently from various courts and that are saying that our work has not been done correctly. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the serious role that we have to play and particularly to the Whaling ruling, which was handed down last Thursday by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was looking at the issue of parole, but it dealt only with the retroactivity aspect. Justice Wagner made an important point in paragraph 67.

I hope that everyone realizes what Justice Wagner said in his obiter dictum. It is not necessarily part of the ruling, but it is downright disturbing. In any case, it will be in writing. He said that some of the debate cast doubt on the constitutionality of the legislation.

It was a very acrimonious debate. That has taught me that the role we have in the House is important. We need to take part in debate, stand up and be heard. The Conservative government, and sometimes its friends at the back of the room on the other end, like to take the words that have been used and what has been said, add some artistic flair by omitting certain parts and make it seem as though something different was implied.

This shows how important the words we use and the work we do are. What is said here could be used in court. It could be analyzed to determine whether a bill we want to pass in the House is legal.

There is a procedure that the Speaker is supposed to enforce to ensure that the rules are followed and decorum is maintained. However, we also have a fundamental obligation to ensure that we are making an informed decision when we pass a bill, which is enforced and has an impact on Canadians.

This is the first day of debate on Bill C-5. However, I have heard in the House how terrible and shameful it is that NDP members want to rise and speak to a bill that affects the safety of people who work sometimes difficult offshore jobs. I salute these people and the work they do for Canadians.

It is not too much to ask to want to review a bill. It is part of the opposition's job to tell the people who are watching us and who are interested in Bill C-5 what happened and what was said at second reading, what happened and what was proposed in committee, and what was rejected out of hand by the Conservatives. More often than not that is what they do when we propose amendments. With the amendments rejected, the bill comes back to the House at report stage and third reading.

Wanting to support the bill is one thing, but we also want to caution the government. I do not want to be accused one day of sitting back in my seat when there was a serious amendment that the government might have benefited from hearing to ensure that it was doing the right thing.

Nothing has been done in response to a very tragic situation that happened more than 12 years ago. This government boasts about being all about law and order and siding with victims. However, workers are victims too sometimes, whether this government likes it or not. Depending on the type of work they do, workers can end up in very dangerous situations.

Accordingly, any measure that affects their safety and deals with a tragic situation, like the one that happened off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, deserves special attention. The amendment proposed by the NDP was quite reasonable.

In statements by members, my colleague mentioned the meeting with the fire chiefs who said after the tragedy in L'Isle-Verte that sprinklers are essential in seniors' residences. I agree with them. We always wait for tragedy to strike before we do anything.

I will never let this government tell me when I have the right to stand up and when I do not. It is our duty. Shame on those who engage in rubber stamping for this government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Gatineau for giving a passionate, persuasive speech, as always. I would like to congratulate her for fiercely defending her constituents while remaining humble.

Why did the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government not implement a clearer, more transparent governance model?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is the million-dollar question. It seems clear to me what the right approach is, although it may be a bit more complicated.

Listening to what others have to say about something takes a bit more time. People sometimes think they know the gospel truth—they head off in one direction and do not want to change course. My colleague spoke about humility and perhaps the issue here is a lack of humility. There is nothing wrong with admitting to a mistake. As long as it happened in good faith, I have no issues with the mistake. However, it bothers me when the same mistakes are made over and over again. As a general rule, there is nothing wrong with listening to other people's opinions.

Transparency is not just a word to be used by the opposition. In my opinion, it should also be part of the vocabulary of the party that becomes government, if it respects Canadians. Through co-operation and transparency, we can make good decisions that benefit Canadians. We are not here for us, we are here for the people who elected us.