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

[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.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. She reminded us that Bill C-5 is a definite and necessary improvement to the existing occupational health and safety system for all concerned. She also reminded us of the importance of protecting these people at work.

In addition, she mentioned the government's refusal to consider the NDP's reasonable amendment, which was to include a mandatory five-year review period.

Can she tell us more about the consequences of that refusal?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, only time will tell.

What I can say is that caution was the main theme of my speech, which was intended as a friendly warning to the Conservative members. Having been slapped in the face so many times over the past few weeks, they should take a step back and reconsider this kind of review mechanism.

Yes, passing Bill C-5 is important. It is long overdue. However, just because others were asleep at the switch does not mean we should do whatever happens to come randomly to mind. What it means is that we should be cautious.

That was the point of our amendment: to include a review mechanism. We are currently doing reviews with respect to official languages and part XVII of the Criminal Code. The MPs who passed section 530 and on of part XVII were smart because they set out a review mechanism to see how the legislation worked in real life. When it comes to worker safety especially, there can be no harm in doing a review.

The word “worker” is not a dirty word. We are all workers. Every day, people do all kinds of work, and some of them are exposed to more danger than others. It is just as important to protect these people as it is to protect every other victim in society.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. Although I have not been in politics for long, I grasped quite quickly that when the government wants to keep speeding things up, it may be because it does not want us to look too closely at certain things.

This matter of the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia boards to deal with offshore oil exploration and development is something I find exceedingly interesting, because there is an eerie and somewhat fantastical aspect to it. I have trouble imagining a group of workers getting into a helicopter, flying out to the middle of the Gulf or off the banks of Newfoundland in sometimes unbelievable weather conditions, to work on an oil rig in the midst of 30-metre waves. Most Canadians could not even imagine what it must be like. And yet, that is what everyday life is like for many seafaring workers.

This image of the platform is like a floating prison where people are forced to work for 12, 14 or 16 hours a day under extreme pressure, because the companies that operate these platforms are often subcontractors, and occupational safety is not a priority for them.

There is black gold fever in Canada at the moment. The goal is to develop all opportunities to extract and exploit oil as quickly as possible, with minimal concern for environmental impacts—a frequent occurrence in the past—or for the working conditions of the people who work there.

I am interested in these things, particularly given that these drilling platforms are not standardized. There are many different kinds. Some are floating platforms, some are modular or semi-submerged and others are jacked up on barges. Each type of drilling platform is therefore different, meaning that workers on these platforms are subjected to different working conditions. Do people know where the water hoses are when they are on a different platform, or when they are young workers first arriving on a platform?

Young workers might well wonder what type of platform it is, what the working conditions are, what kind of pressure they will face and what health risks are involved. This is dangerous work.

I now return to the bill that is meant to address a shortcoming in the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, which we have been attempting to do for 14 years. Occupational health and safety regimes have been enshrined in the act.

The NDP is extremely happy about this, except for a major drawback. Experts and indeed everyone who has analyzed the disasters or injuries suffered by workers have suggested the creation of an agency that is independent from the two boards in order to provide a perspective exclusively focused on occupational health and safety. Other countries have done this, including Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia. We, however, do not appear to be there yet.

I will not quote yet again from Robert Wells, whose report suggested the establishment of an independent agency. Instead, I examined the terms used in the act itself to determine why, when he analyzed the issue, he decided that the answer was to create an independent agency. I therefore reviewed the mandates of the boards provided for in the Atlantic Accord Act, particularly in terms of implementation.

My review of their mandate showed that the board is responsible for offshore management. It deals with the issuance of interests, exploration licences, significant discovery licences, drilling orders, production licences and royalties. It is also responsible for issuing operating licences and authorizations for work, and it has authority in the areas of financial responsibility, investigations and offences. It deals with income taxes, taxes on insurance premiums, tax administration agreements, jurisdiction of courts, regulations and payments. It is also responsible for determining equalization payments on oil deposit royalties. That is the board's mandate.

The bill is designed to add a mandate for the protection of worker safety. The board was established to oversee and regulate oil operations. There is no mention of anything human in its mandate. That is not part of it. The board has been failing to deal with this issue for years. On a platform, it is the union that strives to improve working conditions. Workers are in a no man's land.

It is not a good idea for the same board to be made responsible for monitoring occupational health and safety. That is why it is worth discussing. If action is taken too quickly and the board is given responsibility in this area, it will not exercise this responsibility as it should. Everyone knows that work on offshore platforms is very dangerous. It is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world, and there have been many accidents.

We all remember the major accidents. There have been many oil platform explosions over the past 20 years. They began in the 1970s. There were 123 deaths on the Alexander L. Kielland platform and 167 on the Piper Alpha platform. Here in Canada in 2009, a helicopter crash killed 17 people. In 2010, we all saw what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, when 11 workers were killed.

More recently, in 2011, there were victims in Russia. Off Africa, six people were killed. In the North Sea in August 2013, four died when a helicopter crashed in an incident like the one here in Canada.

We will support this bill, because it will cover the transportation of workers to the platforms and it is important for the workers to be covered during transportation.

There are also many injuries on the platforms. Many hazardous products are used. There are back injuries and there are burns. Medical assistance is required and people are in the middle of the ocean.

For all these reasons, it would be a good thing to create an independent body to handle safety and ensure that everyone who goes to these platforms is monitored in some way, with a view to ensuring that workers are not injured and that when they return to their families, they are still in one piece.

Working on a platform can be exciting. It pays extremely well, but the risks are enormous. I think that establishing an independent body would mean better oversight of all this.

Why was a review of the act after five years requested? Because the black gold rush is on and things are moving quickly. Projects are proliferating. There has been exploratory drilling at 200 sites in Nova Scotia and 376 sites in Newfoundland. People go to sea with not nearly enough protection.

I would like to thank my colleagues for their patience. I would be glad to answer a few questions.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has clearly demonstrated the importance of this bill, and yet, it took 12 years for it to be introduced.

Today the NDP members are the only ones rising to speak to it. No one else has given a speech. What message does that send to workers and to Canadians in general?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was thinking before I started my speech.

The faster we go, the less the government wants to hear about certain aspects. In this case, it does not want to hear about how workers could be better protected. It is ignoring that aspect to make it easier for the industry to get at deposits as quickly as possible, and it is not considering the human condition in the situation.

The NDP represents the people. We care about the human condition and about what it means to participate in an economy and protect one another.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question is factually incorrect. The New Democrats are not the only ones who have been standing inside the House today talking about this bill. Nor does the NDP own any sort of moral high road dealing with labour-related issues.

I have indicated on several occasions today that the Liberal Party has put a high priority on even the passage of this bill. We understand and appreciate the operating difficulties that many offshore workers have on a daily basis. We believe that it is necessary, and it should be ongoing, to improve occupational health and safety issues; that, in fact, it is the provincial governments that are pushing forward this bill we have before us today; and that there is a huge demand from labour, concerned individuals, and different stakeholders who would ultimately want to see the legislation pass.

This is legislation that has fallen short in certain areas, but I would assure the member who posed the question that the New Democrats are not the only ones who care about labour and issues surrounding occupational health and safety, and the record will clearly demonstrate that.

My question for the member is this. In his opinion, where does this legislation actually fall short? Does he believe it should be held up, to continue to improve the legislation?

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

The problem with the Liberal Party is that it was in power for a long time. This issue has been on the political agenda since 2001.

This is similar to the case of bilingual officers of Parliament. This year, the NDP managed to pass a bill requiring officers of Parliament to be bilingual. The Liberals were in power for 20 or 25 years. How did they not think it was necessary for these officers to be bilingual?

If I am not mistaken, they were still in power in 2001 when these negotiations started and they did not resolve them quickly, at least no more quickly than the Conservative government.

Workers in Canada and Quebec cannot count on any party other than the NDP to defend workers' rights.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the very great pleasure of rising to speak to Bill C-5, which does have weaknesses—some of my colleagues have already pointed out some of them—but which seems to have drawn a consensus on the part of the labour unions and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is an extremely important issue. I have a union background myself, and as the official opposition labour critic, I believe that any progress that is made to help workers stay healthy and offer them protection and a safe work environment should be embraced and encouraged.

That is why in the NDP, we recognize that despite its weaknesses, Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction in an issue that should be above partisanship. I would like to point out that today is March 27. In one month and one day it will be the National Day of Mourning. Each year on April 28, we remember those who have lost their lives at work. It is an important day, the symbol of which is the canary, once used in the mines to indicate when the oxygen supply was failing. When the canary died, it was time to get out of the mine, and quickly.

Last summer, I had an opportunity to visit the mine in Springhill, Nova Scotia, and I have to admit that there was a good reason why the first union in Canada was founded in the mines of Nova Scotia, where people wielded their picks on their knees in the dark. If they were not killed in an explosion, they died of black lung, because their lungs were full of coal dust. Things are different now. Unions have been legal in Canada since 1872, but before that, they were not. It has only been a little more than a century. We must continue to see to it that conditions for those working on offshore oil and gas projects are as safe as they can be.

On April 28, we commemorate all those who have lost their lives at work. It has to be said that there are many more deaths than commonly thought. In 1993, there were 758 recorded deaths in the workplace. In 2004, there were 928. In 2005, there were 1,097. That is 1,097 individuals, nearly 1,100 people in a single year who left for work one morning and never came home. This is intolerable and unacceptable. As legislators, we should do everything in our power to put in place regulatory frameworks so that these terrible things never happen again.

Nearly 1,100 people losing their lives in the workplace. Given that the average worker in Canada or Quebec works 230 days a year, this means five deaths every working day. Five people dead from trying to earn a living. People should never lose their lives from trying to earn a living and support a family.

Offshore workers deserve our support, and our support at this stage for Bill C-5. It is based on three major principles that the NDP shares and wishes to promote. Workplace health and safety legislation should protect workers—in this case, offshore workers—at least as well as it protects onshore workers. It is a simple question of fairness.

We understand that resources have to be more substantial. My colleague has already pointed out that it is much more difficult to help someone at sea than someone in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, who is within a 10-minute drive of three hospitals. Being far away at sea is no reason for a person not to receive the necessary emergency assistance and care in such situations.

Workers’ rights must be protected. This is extremely important. A workplace health and safety culture that recognizes a shared responsibility should be supported. Workers themselves obviously have a responsibility to take care. The employer has a responsibility to take every measure necessary to ensure that workers' lives and safety are not placed in jeopardy.

The government is responsible for putting legislation in place that will compel all parties to act responsibly so that when people leave for work in the morning, there is every chance that they will come home that evening. This is extremely important.

Unfortunately, this bill has taken a long time. It has been under discussion for 12 years. We are happy that it is moving forward, but it is moving at a snail’s pace. The Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party before it, could have done their due diligence much sooner.

Today, the government has placed this bill before us. Better late than never, but it has been rather a long time coming. Moreover, while the government is working with two provincial governments and the unions to improve workplace health and safety for offshore oil and gas workers, it is at the same time undermining health and safety rights in its own legislation, with Bill C-4. It is changing the definition of workplace danger that employees working for organizations under federal jurisdiction can use in order to exercise their right of refusal to work.

A worker’s right of refusal means being able to say that it seems to him dangerous to go where his employer is asking him to go, because he believes that he could have something fall on his head, say, or slip and fall, or step on a live wire.

In a budget implementation act, the Canada Labour Code was amended to change the definition of the word “danger”, which must now be a significant and immediate threat. For example, if the employee is working with asbestos and he risks having cancer in 20 years, this is not immediate. So there may be some argument about this.

Furthermore, the threat must be significant, without any definition of what a significant threat is, or consultation with business, industry, trades or unions. This has all suddenly been presented to us like a rabbit out of a hat.

In parliamentary committee, questions were asked about what constitutes a significant threat. If I lose a finger, is this significant or not? If I lose a leg, is it significant? What piece of the body has to be lost or damaged before it is considered significant?

We asked about the studies the Conservatives relied on for changing the definition and whether there was a problem with the current definition. The answer was that 80% of cases of refusals to work for health and safety reasons were not justified. We asked to see the documents, and there were not any. Their estimates were based on internal discussions. This is what we learned in committee. That is really something.

In those discussions, apparently, they heard talk of situations where the claims were not justified or where there was some abuse of the system. They told themselves they would have to get tough.

In getting tough, they are likely to endanger the health or the lives of employees who work for an organization under federal jurisdiction, and, for us in the NDP, this is unacceptable.

We think it is a shame that, on the one hand, the government is working to improve the health and safety of some workers, which is a good thing and something we are supporting, and on the other hand, it is complicating the right to refuse work for tens of thousands of people.

Even if it were true that 80% of cases were not justified, that means that 20% of cases were indeed justified, and this is what counts. This is what is important for us. The job will perhaps have to wait an hour longer. That is not important. An inspector will come and look into the problem. The important thing is that no one is hurt and no one dies on the job.

We in the NDP are going to support Bill C-5. However, I think that we should have brought in recommendation 29 made by Robert Wells, who said, “I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire report”.

Recommendation 29 is the only recommendation that is not included in the bill.

Recommendation 29 calls for a new, independent and stand-alone organization to be established to regulate health and safety matters in the offshore areas of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. If that is not possible, Justice Wells recommended, in the alternative, that the government create a separate and autonomous safety division in that department with a separate budget, separate leadership and an organizational structure designed to deal only with health and safety matters, and that an advisory board be established, composed of mature and experienced persons who are fully representative of the community and unconnected with the oil industry.

That is very important indeed.

This is a bill that brings regulatory progress. For once, the government has worked in co-operation with the provinces, but once is not a habit.

However, one piece is missing, and that is a genuinely independent organization that would help us monitor the measures that are put in place and that is not connected to the industry or the government. In our minds, that is an essential recommendation, and we very much deplore the fact that it is not addressed in Bill C-5.

That will not prevent us from voting for the bill at this time, but we believe the government should make consequential amendments to it.

[Joan Crockatt, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reinforce the point that both provinces have already given royal assent to their respective bills to enact these changes.

The member opposite talked about delays. I am asking him to stop delaying now. The provinces have been waiting patiently for Bill C-5 to pass through our Parliament so that this new regime that would protect workers can come into force.

Will members opposite now allow this legislation to finally come into force so workers do not have to wait another day without the extra safety measures that Bill C-5 would bring to them?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Blame the NDP, Mr. Speaker.

I thank my colleague for her question. However, the Conservative government has been in power since 2006, and this is 2014. I do not believe it is really the NDP’s fault that this bill has not previously been brought forward and introduced in the House.

If the Conservative government had been serious about this issue, it would have worked much faster to actually help workers. That unfortunately is not one of the Conservative Party’s priorities, and this is not the first time this government has attacked the bargaining rights of the federal public service, for example. It also attacks labour organizations, thus attacking the middle class.

The NDP therefore has no lessons to learn from the Conservative government regarding worker health and safety.