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 proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported with amendments from the committee.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to add my voice to support this worthy legislation.

If there is one thing our government has been crystal clear about when it comes to energy development, it is that public health and safety and environmental protection are paramount. This is the very essence of reasonable resource development.

There is no question we are determined to create high-quality jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians, and the energy sector has certainly delivered that to Atlantic Canadians in recent years.

Since the oil and gas industry began operating offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador in the late 1960s, the region's economy has been transformed. In 2010, the industry generated wages, salaries, and benefits worth $291 million in the province of Newfoundland alone. Not only does the sector clearly make a major contribution to the livelihoods of workers, but it also improves the standard of living of all residents in the region, and there is also no debate that we recognize that it would be irresponsible to promote development without the assurance that the health and safety of our citizens and the protection of our environment will be fully addressed. That is precisely what Bill C-5 is designated to do. It would better safeguard Atlantic offshore oil and gas workers.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports that over 5,000 individuals are currently employed in the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Almost 1,000 more work in Nova Scotia's petroleum sector, and the potential is great for even more jobs and economic growth in the near future. Recent offshore oil and gas discoveries are bringing a new wave of activity into the Atlantic provinces.

There is all the more reason, then, for Bill C-5. Workers in the industry need to be protected, given the dangerous conditions associated frequently with their jobs.

Under the Canada Labour Code, workers are protected from hazards in the workplace. This protection includes the fundamental right to refuse dangerous work. As was underscored by the tragic March 2009 crash of Cougar flight 491 ferrying oil workers to offshore rigs and by the catastrophic sinking of the Ocean Ranger oil rig in 1982, worker safety must be job number one.

I can assure the House that our government is committed to ensuring the health and safety of Canadian workers and the protection of the environment. That is why we are introducing this new regime for Atlantic offshore workplaces.

Before outlining these improvements in detail, let me first explain where the federal government fits in this picture.

The Government of Canada shares responsibility for the management of the offshore with the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. These responsibilities are laid out in bilateral accords with each province, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Canada's Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry is regulated by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, as well as the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. These boards ensure that operators and drilling contractors comply with the requirements of their respective implementation acts and exercise due diligence to prevent spills in Canada's offshore.

The Atlantic accords have been in place since the 1980s and are no longer sufficient to reflect contemporary requirements. They require modernization. The labour program, along with representatives from Natural Resources Canada, provincial energy and labour departments, and the provinces' offshore petroleum boards have identified and agreed to key areas for improvement.

First, the legislation places authority for occupational health and safety within the accord acts. If adopted, this legislation would establish an occupational health and safety framework within the Atlantic accord acts.

The new regime would apply to worker safety on-site at offshore rigs, as well as to workers in transit to or from offshore platforms.

The new regime would apply both to worker safety on site at an offshore rig as well as to workers in transit to or from an offshore platform. It would be jointly overseen by the Minister of Natural Resources and provincial occupational health and safety ministers for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

It would be enforced by their individual offshore petroleum boards.

The boards would be responsible for verifying that companies have adequate plans in place to protect their employees and to avoid dangers. This includes everything from ensuring the safe handling of hazardous materials to proper procedures related to the operation of equipment and managing facilities. Using audits and inspections, we would confirm that all applicable health and safety requirements were met and demand correction if deficiencies were found. As well, the boards would be granted increased authority, such as enforcement powers for occupational health and safety officers.

These include the powers of inspection and investigation, warrant provisions and creative sentencing measures in case of dangerous situations.

Under Bill C-5, the Minister of Labour would provide ongoing federal labour expertise, such as the development of regulations, the issuance of directives to the boards, and recommendations on the appointments of special officers.

Special officers would be appointed to avoid a serious, imminent risk to the health and safety of offshore workers.

Such a scenario would proceed following joint approval and appointment by the pertinent provincial ministers and the Minister of Natural Resources, following a recommendation by the Minister of Labour.

Along with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Labour would also co-appoint six members of a 13-member advisory council to be made up of employers, employees, and the two levels of government. The council would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas about occupational health and safety issues to ensure the effectiveness of this legislation.

Bill C-5 also introduces consequential amendments to part II of the Canada Labour Code. In the event of an accident, the bill would extend the time limit to launch a prosecution from one year to two years, consistent with the occupational health and safety legislation in many provinces. The Minister of Labour would also have the right to disclose information to the public regarding occupational health and safety.

The amendments would also give the Minister of Labour the authority to share information with federal and provincial government departments as well as with international organizations if the minister deems it to be in the interests of occupational health and safety or in the public interest overall. This would make it easier to share information during a coroner's inquest or a provincial prosecution. I want to be clear, however, that personal information would continue to be protected.

I should point out several minor amendments to the legislation since it has been debated at second reading.

Most amendments are technical in nature, such as putting the word “Canada” in the title of the regulations and renumbering the subtexts of the act that were incorrectly numbered.

Some were needed to harmonize federal and provincial legislation. For instance, we had to replace the provincial “Occupational Health and Safety Act” in Nova Scotia with the correct new name of its Labour Board Act, as this province has amended its legislation recently. Federal and provincial legislation obviously must mirror each other.

Several amendments were required as a result of Bill C-4, the second budget implementation act, and changes to part II of the Canada Labour Code.

The changes proposed under the Canada Labour Code would make coordinating amendments. “Minister of Labour” would now replace the terms “health and safety officer” or “regional health and safety officer” to reflect the minister's authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions previously conferred to health and safety officers. Let me be clear that through the delegation process, decisions will continue to be made by health and safety officers with the necessary expertise.

Coordination is required around the protections within the code regarding the minister giving testimony in civil proceedings, and these amendments now refer to “civil and administrative proceedings”, which include arbitration hearings.

The improvements I have outlined respond to input received in extensive consultations in 2010 and 2011. The provinces and industry and employee groups have all expressed strong support for the changes we have proposed. They have done so because they recognize that these changes would ensure that Canada's offshore industries will operate safely and to the highest environmental standards.

Bill C-5 would create a modern occupational health and safety regime that is relevant and responsive to today's offshore oil and gas reality, and, most importantly, it would provide robust protection for Canada's oil and gas workers, ensuring their safety and health in the workplace.

Thousands of Atlantic Canadian workers are looking to us to ensure their well-being and continued prosperity. Therefore, I urge all parties to support the bill and make these amendments the law of the land.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the legislation, but there is one serious problem with it that I wish to raise.

The minister mentioned the Cougar helicopter crash. Of course, following that, there was an inquiry by former Justice Wells as the lead commissioner. He made what he called his most important recommendation, number 29, that there ought to be an independent offshore safety regulator. The minister mentioned that the accords were bilateral agreements. The Newfoundland government firmly and strongly supported that recommendation, yet the government failed to agree. Not only did it fail to agree to that, it also failed to agree to an NDP amendment proposed at committee to have a 5-year review of that provision to see how the act is operating and reconsider that request. Why did the government refuse to do that?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned before, our government will continue to work with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the safety of these offshore areas.

Commissioner Wells was actually very clear at the natural resources committee in December, when he said that he was pleased with our offshore health and safety legislation. He was also very clear that good would come from the government's adoption of his recommendations. I encourage the members opposite to please read through the transcripts and be informed about what specifically was said at committee.

[Susan Truppe, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, I know that in my riding of London North Centre, jobs and safety are very important to my constituents. Just recently, I was happy to attend a joint announcement by GDLS and the Minister of International Trade of one of the largest contracts in the history of Canada, one that will result in the employment of over 3,000 people.

In the minister's speech, she mentioned that we need better safeguards, that workers need protection and that their safety is number one. Here, could the minister explain how important the offshore oil and gas industry is to Canada and what would be the most effective change in Bill C-5.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London North Centre for really focusing on jobs. This is a huge component of what we are trying to achieve here. Whether it be the almost 5,000 individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, or the over 1,000 individuals in Nova Scotia, this will have a direct impact on them by ensuring that we are growing the oil and gas economy in Atlantic Canada and reaching out not only directly to those employees, but also via the spinoff benefits to the individuals who are beneficiaries of this.

Specifically with respect to these accords, the health and safety of all Canadian workers is paramount. If individuals cannot attend work knowing they are in a safe environment, where they can work safely throughout the entire day, and from where they can return to their families in the evenings, quite frankly with their lives and all of their fingers and toes intact, it makes it very challenging for them to be productive at work. The direction of these accords is first to make sure that those workers on oil and gas rigs in Atlantic Canada know they are safe and that they can have a productive day and, second, that the industry overall is safe so that we can continue to grow it and create more jobs in Atlantic Canada.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in the minister's speech she referred to the Ocean Ranger disaster. Following that particular disaster, Chief Justice Hickman headed a royal commission on the Ocean Ranger. There are still some outstanding recommendations from Chief Justice Hickman's report of almost 20 years ago.

When putting the bill together, did the government look at any of the recommendations of Chief Justice Alex Hickman's royal commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific report, I would have to ask my officials, since I do not have a note on that. However, extensive consultations have taken place since 2003, which were updated in 2010 and 2011. Employers, employees, and governments have all been consulted and are very supportive of what is going forward. We will continue to update the regulations associated with this to make sure that we are meeting the standards of the day.

I appreciate the member's comments and I would be quite happy to get back to him with a specific answer.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the minister would refuse to answer a very simple question. I will try to ask it in the simplest way possible.

Why was recommendation 29 from the Wells report not included in Bill C-5? It is a simple question. Can she answer it?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I think I answered this question, which was that Mr. Wells was very clear at the Natural Resources committee in December that he was pleased with the offshore health and safety legislation that currently exists.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for carefully outlining the aspect of Bill C-5 dealing primarily with the occupational health and safety issue. She also responded earlier to a question regarding the number of workers who benefit from oil and gas production on offshore rigs.

I think that Canadians probably often think of the oil sands as the place from where all the oil is coming. I wonder if the minister would tell us what percentage of oil from offshore oil and gas development Canadians rely on.

I think it is important to realize not only the impact of oil on jobs and opportunities for Canadians, but also the energy needs of Canadians. It is important, first of all, that we have good, safe regulations to protect our workers. It is also important that we have access to good quality oil products.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having grown up in a part of the country that is known for being the focal point of oil refining and development, northern Alberta and Fort McMurray, I am delighted to know that many of the individuals helping to grow Canada's economy are Atlantic Canadians.

The offshore contributes significantly to our nation's production, including 35% of Canada's total light crude production and close to 10% of Canada's total crude production 2010. These are substantial numbers that are driving the economies of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as contributing to Nova Scotia's economy.

The statistics are very clear. These activities represented 30% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP in 2010 and roughly 3% of Nova Scotia's GDP in the same timeframe. It directly employs over 5,100 Canadians.

The oil and gas sector in Atlantic Canada is growing. It is great for Canadians, it is great for Atlantic Canadians, and it is great for individuals to know they are contributing so substantially to the Canadian economy and making sure there are jobs at home supporting thousands of Atlantic Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have raised the issue of an independent regulator a number of times. As my colleague for St. John's East said, it was an important recommendation in Commissioner Wells' report. We have supported the bill because it is an improvement over the current situation. Nonetheless, this is something that needs to be addressed.

At committee, the NDP moved an amendment to ask for a ministerial review of the effectiveness of these changes within five years. The commissioner had indicated that while the bill was an improvement, it might not answer everything and that there might be a need to address in the future and to make revisions at a later point in time. Also, having an independent regulator is something that other nations doing similar work have done. Therefore, why would the minister not be willing to support an amendment that would allow the minister to do a review within five years?

Let us remember that we are trying to ensure the safety of the men and women who work in this industry and to fully protect us from environmental disasters.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I think the committee testimony was quite clear.

The regulatory process has begun and we will be continuing the development of regulations following the passage of the bill. Provisions within the proposed amendments require that the regulations be completed within the next five years, and we are continuing to receive input.

However, whether it be the government or others, we are always open to constructive input that provides opportunities to improve the health and safety of Canadians. If opposition members or other Canadians have recommendations that we should be considering, I encourage them to send them to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at third reading on Bill C-5, an important piece of legislation for the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore petroleum industries, which are extremely important not only to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but also to Canada, as pointed out by previous speakers.

As was said, the industry produces 35% of Canadian light crude production, is a significant contributor to our oil industry, and has made a significant difference to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. We are proud of the very strong industry that we have and the contribution it makes to our workforce and our industry, to our universities, our education system, as well as to the lives of people who are able to earn a very good living from its development.

It has been a positive experience, but we also know that work on the offshore is inherently dangerous. We have had very sad reminders of that in the past. The Ocean Ranger disaster in February 1982 was mentioned, where 84 offshore workers were drowned in a serious disaster, where a rig engaged in exploration of the offshore in Newfoundland sank and, of course, most recently, the Cougar Helicopter crash in 2009 with the loss of 17 lives. There was another helicopter crash in the late 1980s. So we do know that we have an industry with a lot of opportunity for injury as well as loss of life, as we have sadly seen.

That is what the bill is about. The bill would put in place a safety regime in legislation, believe it or not, for the first time in the offshore. What we have had up until now is a set of draft regulations. It is almost hard to believe that the entire offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia was operated under a set of draft regulations, under some theory that if we had the draft regulations it would force the employers, the industry players, and the companies to follow them as if they were guidelines.

However, there were no enforcement mechanisms.The only enforcement mechanisms were to put a stop work order on the rig. But that was an all or nothing situation. One could not actually go and inspect and find someone who had violated a provision and use those rules to make an improvement, to issue a fine, and use the same regulatory process used in health and safety to ensure compliance with the rules.

I have some experience with offshore workers. In my life as a lawyer, I represented Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil workers in their efforts to obtain union representation and recognition. They in fact became the first offshore oil workers in North America to achieve collective bargaining. Of course, important aspects of collective bargaining include wages and working conditions, but there was also an extreme level of interest in the process of safety committees, how safety was being managed by these companies and employers, and on the part of employees and their elected organizations in participating fully in this process.

We have seen as well a very significant delay in the implementation of significant recommendations that came, for example, from the Ocean Ranger disaster. One of them was that an emergency helicopter should be stationed in the area closest to the offshore and be available on up to 45 minutes' notice. That was not implemented. That recommendation was made in 1985 and it did not become implemented until the last year or so, after Justice Wells stated that he wanted this to happen immediately. We now have a standby helicopter at St. John's available to wheel up in 20 minutes any time another helicopter is in the area transporting workers back and forth to the oil platforms and drilling platforms. That took 20 or 30 years to be put in place.

The negotiations with respect to this legislation have been going on for 13 years. It is astonishing.

With the minister having said that this is a top priority and that job one is the health and safety of offshore workers, the delays that have taken place and the length of time that it has taken to get these regulations in place are shocking. That is something that the workers are quite concerned about, and have been for many years.

We still have concerns, and the workers have concerns, about the use of night flights for helicopters. Former Justice Wells, during the course of the helicopter inquiry, issued an interim recommendation that there be no more night flights. Evidence had been presented to the helicopter inquiry that it is significantly more difficult to rescue people at night and that the rate of loss of life when a helicopter ditches at night is some 65% to 70% higher than if the ditching happens in the daylight. As a result of his recommendation, the C-NLOPB stopped night flights. The companies are now seeking to return to night flights, and there is strong opposition to that from many quarters, including the workers and the workers representatives; so we still see ongoing issues and problems.

However, I want to reiterate that we support this legislation because it was pushed by the workers' representatives who were involved both directly in the offshore and also with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. They participated in these negotiations in Nova Scotia. They worked to ensure that the same kinds of safety regimes that exist on land, in terms of the right of a worker to refuse unsafe work and to participate in health and safety committees, are now parallel in the offshore. That is an achievement. Therefore, it is not a surprise that people support this legislation; it is an advance over what is there today. The regulations would be in place. They would be enforceable. There would be a system for that and a more rigorous involvement of worker representatives in health and safety committees. That is a success.

Therefore, we support it. We have supported it through committee. We did want improvements. I will provide an example of the kind of evidence the committee heard from witnesses. I would like to quote from the presentation by Lana Payne, who is the Atlantic director for Unifor at the moment but was the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour for a number of years.

In her testimony before the committee, she said:

...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.

That was her testimony before the committee on December 9 of last year. That echoes recommendation number 29 of Mr. Justice Wells, which he characterized as his most important recommendation. He did that based on his study of regimes in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Norway. Even the United States has recognized the necessity of having a separate regime so that the health and safety of offshore workers is dealt with separately in the regulation of the industry, which involves quite a lot of collaborative work back and forth. The concern is what Mr. Justice Wells called regulatory capture.

That is a phrase used to describe what can happen if the regulator becomes very close to the industry it is regulating and ends up not being able to be independent and provide the sole priority of looking after the health and safety of workers.

That is why this recommendation was made and that is why these countries that have mature oil and gas regimes, such as Norway and the U.K. in the North Sea, have adopted it as a result of learning that it was necessary to make sure they had, as Lana Payne has so eloquently put it, “...a stand-alone, powerful, and independent safety and environmental authority...”. That is what is required. The Newfoundland government supported that recommendation. We have a truly bilateral event here. We have not been given an explanation by the minister as to why the Government of Canada has said no. Why has it said no? The government has not provided any rationale in the minister's speech today, despite two questions to the minister—or was it three?—asking why that was.

Mr. Justice Wells still supports his recommendations. The Government of Newfoundland is very adamant that it wants to see a stand-alone offshore safety body that can handle safety and health issues, and we would add environment to that, as well, as Lana Payne has pointed out.

We do have reservations, obviously, about this. We thought that at least the government would recognize, if it was not going to adopt recommendation number 29 and put in place a stand-alone review, and accept the amendment, which is:

The Minister of Natural Resources must cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than five years after this Act comes into force, a report on the operation and implementation of this Act, including whether an independent offshore area regulator is desirable.

That would require this notion of the independent safety regulator to be foremost in the mind of the government as we go forward and, in five years, report to Parliament: “What can you tell us about the operation of this act, in light of the recommendation for an independent regulator? Can you show us that it has operated well without that? Or have you been able to conclude that an offshore separate regulator is available?”

That was an important effort and we thought that, from the point of view of government operations, particularly in light of the strong recommendation that has come forward and the strong support of the Newfoundland government, the partner in this, we would see agreement on that at least. But, no, it got very short shrift at the committee from the government members without really any effort to justify why they were not accepting that.

However, that is not unusual from the current government. It is not unusual for us to go to committee with cogent arguments, with witness support, with experts and expertise, and time and again this happens in committees with the current government.

It has not always been like that. I was here with another government, a Progressive Conservative government, back in the 1980s. We had committee meetings. We offered suggestions. We made amendments. The amendments were debated. Some were accepted; some were rejected. It was a somewhat more collegial effort, shall we say, than we have in committee with the current government.

Anything the government proposes has to be perfect. It must be perfect. Of course, it is perfect until it realizes it has made some mistakes and then it brings in a bunch of amendments itself, as it did in this case. I think it brought forward 10 at the end of the day: “Oh, we've got to fix this, this, and this”; but if anybody else makes a suggestion: “Oh, no. It's perfect as it is. We don't need to change anything because, of course, we wouldn't bring anything forward if it wasn't right and proper”.

That is an unfortunate attitude. I do not know whether it represents paranoia, immaturity, lack of confidence, or just sheer pigheadedness, but the current government does not seem to recognize that any good suggestions can come from any location other than its side of the House, or maybe from the PMO.

Maybe all suggestions must flow from the PMO instead of members opposite who are listening to what is said in committee, accepting that the arguments make sense, and agreeing that the legislation may need to be amended slightly to make it better.

That is the theory of debate and amendment. Amendments are made to improve legislation, not to change it so that it would do something different from what was intended. If an amendment goes against the original intention of the legislation, it is ruled out of order. The only amendments acceptable in parliamentary procedure are ones that are within the scope of the bill and are offered by way of improvement to better achieve the purposes of the bill.

The purpose of this legislation is to have an offshore health and safety regime that reflects the needs of the people in the industry and the industry itself. Its purpose is to have a robust safety regime that ensures the safety of all workers and that ensures that the operation can be done properly, as the minister mentioned, both on site and also in transit back and forth to the oil platforms and rigs.

It has been pointed out that three rigs are presently in operation and another one is in the works, which should be operating by 2017. The Hebron-Ben Nevis field is farther out, some 400 kilometres offshore, which is a very grave distance. Helicopters fly out there in all sorts of sea conditions—obviously not in too inclement weather—that make it difficult to ditch an aircraft, if that becomes necessary. In this case, the helicopter that is being used is the only helicopter of its class that does not have a 30-minute run dry capability, which is when the main gearbox loses oil. It is required that a helicopter be able to operate for 30 minutes with a total loss of oil in the main gearbox. That requirement is for significant safety reasons. It is a requirement for military helicopters, some of which will run dry for an hour or more, but the minimum standard is 30 minutes.

When Sikorsky designed this helicopter, it received an exemption on the basis that this would never happen, or that the chances of it ever happening were remote, one in ten million hours. In the first 100,000 flying hours of helicopters of this type it happened twice, in Australia in the summer of 2008 and in the offshore of Newfoundland in March of 2009. In Australia, the helicopter was fortunately over land and the pilots could land it quickly to avoid a disaster. The second time it tragically happened in the offshore of Newfoundland. Unfortunately the documentation for this aircraft suggested that it did have 30-minute run dry capability. The helicopter pilots were heading for land, expecting to have 30 minutes to get there, but they had less than 12 minutes. The helicopter seized up and crash-landed into the ocean, causing the loss of 17 of the 18 people onboard. Miraculously, one person survived that crash.

As has been said, this is a significant step forward. We would have an enforceable health and safety regime in the offshore. Workers would have the right to refuse unsafe work and participate on health and safety committees. Hopefully, we will have a good regime that will work. Unfortunately, we do not have the independent safety regulator that was recommended by Commissioner Wells and supported by the government and people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the offshore workers themselves. Unfortunately, the government will not commit to reviewing that in five years. However, we do support the legislation.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for his intervention and acknowledge that he has been around this file on the offshore for some time. I am going to lean on him for his knowledge and expertise in this matter to follow up on a question that I tried to ask the minister regarding the Ocean Ranger and Chief Justice Alex Hickman's commission.

The report had 136 recommendations to improve the offshore oil industry. The government has only implemented 90 of those 136. That leaves 46 recommendations unfulfilled from that particular inquiry. My question is whether any of the 46 recommendations have made their way into this legislation to improve the offshore off of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

We talked about the other inquiry, and there were two recommendations left out, but I am curious about the Ocean Ranger inquiry. Have any of the 46 recommendations that have been left undone made their way into this legislation at all?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved for a long time. In fact, I participated in the Ocean Ranger inquiry when it was launched in 1982, as a new young lawyer in St. John's, in Newfoundland and Labrador. A great deal of effort and anxiety went into coming up with these recommendations.

Unfortunately, as the member pointed out, the recommendation of having a rescue helicopter available was, shockingly, not implemented until after the Cougar helicopter crashed, more than 25 years after the recommendations were made.

I do not have a compendium of all of the recommendations. Clearly, the Ocean Ranger recommendation is now in place. It was not thanks to this legislation, but it was thanks to the recommendation of former Justice Wells that we have the helicopter for search and rescue purposes. There are outstanding recommendations, as the hon. member has pointed out, and they should be attended to. An evacuation system is a recommendation that has been worked on over the years. I do not think that we have the right system yet. There are still other recommendations that need to be looked at.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are biased in favour of this bill and we will support it because we always get behind worker health and safety measures. It is sad that, as usual, nothing changes until someone dies. I am not saying that is always the case, but it is often the case.

I have a question for my hon. colleague about the bill before us. Big changes have been made and we are moving in the right direction, but now we are up against one of this government's ideological impediments, which is that private industry should self-regulate. We have seen this in other sectors, such as rail transportation. Is that why Justice Wells' recommendation to create an independent worker safety authority—which was probably the most important recommendation—is not in this bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, and particularly for his observation about how the Conservative government has been working with respect to recommendations of a health and safety nature.

Safety does cost money. We have seen the resistance by industry to advances that cost money. They obviously do not want to spend money where they do not have to. It does require a government that is vigorous in insisting that the things that need to happen do happen, for the sake of offshore worker safety. We see some of that here, but we do not see it going far enough.

The night flights offshore are a good example. Why do we need night flights? We need them so we can operate the same number of helicopters for a greater period of time. The alternative is to have more helicopters. If we had an extra helicopter, we would not have to fly at night. However, extra helicopters cost money. There has to be a crew.

There is a trade-off being urged between worker safety and cost. We would clearly prefer to come down on the side of worker safety. If night flights are more dangerous, we should be able to insist that there are more helicopters in place. If helicopters that have a run-dry capability of 30 minutes are available, then they should be used, not the ones that do not have the capability. They may cost more money and there may be a cost in replacing them, but the value of the lives and safety of workers has to take precedence over that. We do not see that kind of attitude coming from the Conservative government.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention by my friend from St. John's East.

You spoke, I thought very eloquently about your work in committee and the fact that there was no statutory—

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I would remind the member for Victoria to direct his comments to the Chair, not to other members.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, through you, the member for St. John's East made a very eloquent statement about the nature of the work at committee on this matter and the fact that the government rejected the notion of a five-year review. Having worked on committees in which that five-year process has been required, such as under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and having seen a Progressive Conservative government release a unanimous committee report with recommendations, I saw first-hand the utility of such a statutory review.

My question is twofold. Given that this bill requires agreement with the two provinces at issue, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, would the Conservatives find such a statutory review acceptable after a five-year period? I would like to also know why the government would reject the notion of a five-year review in these circumstances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and compliments from my learned friend and colleague for my speech, but I think he knows that I cannot answer why the Conservatives would reject it, other than to speculate.

There appears to be an unfortunate lack of collegiality at committee. Politicians obviously posture, especially in the House of Commons, but in committees one would expect to have a greater level of collegiality. In some committees there is that collegiality. I am looking at the prominent member of the fisheries committee, which has had collegiality as an operating principle over many years. However, when it comes to dealing with legislation, we do not see the collegiality that should exist to improve and make things happen.

That was a reasonable—though I would not call it a compromise. New Democrats were not going to get what we wanted. However, the committee should have been able to put that on the radar of the current government, or the next government. It may not be the current government. We are hoping it will not be the Conservative government, but it might be. Whatever government is in place, it would be on the radar of that government that this should be looked at. The bureaucracy and those involved would then look forward to this happening in five-years' time and be able to prepare to deal with that.

It is very unfortunate. That is all I can say. I do not know why that is, except stubbornness. Whatever is in the legislation that Conservatives put there is all that they want to do.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-5. This is the second day this week that the House has debated legislation that impacts activities in the offshore sector, which, to those of us in Atlantic Canada, like my colleague the member for St. John's East, who just spoke, and the member for Avalon, who asked him a question, is very important. It is very important to our economy and to the people who work in the offshore sector who benefit from that. It is very important that they are safe in the work they do and in travelling to and from the offshore platforms.

The offshore sector can be a dangerous place. I know there are many measures taken to make it as safe as possible, but it is tough work. It can be dangerous work, and we have seen unfortunate proof of that over the years. In fact, there are brave men and women working out there every day performing very challenging work.

Making sure that these people are safe in their workplaces and that they return home to their families must be a priority for all of us. Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction.

However, I hope the government will actually listen to experts on Bill C-22, which we debated on Tuesday, because it did not listen to experts with respect to Bill C-5, which we are discussing today.

When the House was debating second reading of Bill C-5, the member for Burnaby—Douglas asked if I thought the legislation went far enough in addressing the concerns of the Wells royal commission.

I did not, and I do not. One concern I have with Bill C-5 is that it did not adopt recommendation 29 of the Wells commission report, which flowed from a terrible helicopter crash off Newfoundland. That was already discussed a bit this morning.

My hope was that when the bill went to committee there would be consideration given to an amendment to adopt recommendation 29, which called for a separate organization to look at the question of workers' health and safety, an organization solely dedicated to that absolutely vital task.

Commissioner Wells testified at the committee last fall that he “felt that an independent safety authority was the best choice..”. Commissioner Wells went on to add that he did not think everyone would agree with the recommendation. That is reasonable. He included a fallback position, which was to create a separate safety division within the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Of course, this legislation would also apply to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board.

While the fallback position was adopted, in my view it falls short of what is needed. It is yet another missed opportunity by this neo-Conservative government. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 was reported back to the House of Commons with only a few technical amendments which correct inaccurate wording in a number of clauses.

It was also very unfortunate, in my view, that the Conservatives on the committee would not support efforts to provide greater clarity on the word “danger” in the act. That word is particularly important, and the meaning of it is particularly important in this kind of legislation.

Under this legislation, certain terms such as “danger” are not defined in this bill. They remain to be defined by federal regulation on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Labour, and with the approval of provincial ministers.

In committee, I introduced a proposed amendment calling for consultations with the provinces and key stakeholders on the definition of “dangerous work”, something that we have heard is important. I felt it would coincide with the testimony we heard in committee about the importance of consulting on this question of the word “danger”. That is critical for all parts of the offshore oil and gas industry, and the men and women who work in our offshore.

While this legislation does push the yardsticks and while it is a move in the right direction, it could have been better. It could have been strengthened. It should have been amended. As legislators, that is our job. It is our job not only to examine these carefully, to look for ways to improve them, but also to hear the evidence, hear the experts, and reflect on that expert evidence and testimony and make the appropriate changes. We are not simply here to do whatever the kids in short pants in the Prime Minister's Office tell us or order the Conservatives to do.

We are often asked to strike a careful balance between economic success in the oil and gas sector, the rights of employees and, of course, environmental concerns. Bill C-5 is one of the many tools to achieve this balance, and I believe the Canadian Parliament, including members in the House of Commons, ought to strive to set an example to the rest of the world by clearly indicating that we value human capital at least as much as the wealth we derive from our natural resources. That is why the Liberal Party has supported this bill.

Bill C-5 will effectively solve the issue of jurisdiction surrounding occupational health and safety in Canada's offshore oil and gas industry. It was not clear until now—which became very clear after the terrible helicopter accident off Newfoundland when it was unclear which level of government had responsibility and jurisdiction. This will solve that issue and that is important. That is an important step forward, which has taken over 10 years to realize.

The legislation would also create a streamlined process for rectifying health and safety issues and to assign responsibility. That is important because we do not want to have any doubt about jurisdiction if there is an accident in the offshore. An issue of the utmost importance is our capacity to respond to an accident or spill in the offshore. However, that is a debate for another day, and I hope we will have opportunities to do that.

This legislation is focused on the right to a safe workplace. It is an important right and a right that all Canadians must enjoy. Many of us as Canadians, and certainly those of us as members of Parliament, have a very safe work environment and are very fortunate in the kind of work we do. For the most part, it is indoor work and a lot of it is desk work or standing up work, but it sure is not in conditions some workers across this country face, by any means.

If we think of working outside on a cold day like this, or of the folks in Atlantic Canada—and I look across to my colleagues from New Brunswick and consider our families back home and other families in Atlantic Canada, digging out from a terrible storm and still experiencing terrible wind, some of them without power, and consider the folks from the power companies and snowplow drivers and others out there who are working to get things back to normal—we should feel pretty fortunate to be working in a place like this with the kind of jobs that we have.

Though a safe workplace is not the reality for all Canadians, governments have worked with stakeholder groups in the past to improve conditions faced by Canadians in their places of employment.

That, obviously, is incredibly important work. Bill C-5 is an example of these efforts—in this case, the joint efforts of the provincial and federal levels working together, which does not happen often enough. Indeed, this government is not known for working with provincial governments. However, it is our collective responsibility, whether as a legislative body, employers or employees, or society as a whole, to ensure that the right to a safe work environment is respected.

It is absolutely vital. The conditions for employees on offshore drilling projects should be comparable to those on land-based projects. There is no question that a drilling rig, whether offshore or onshore, can be a very dangerous environment.

I think employees and their families can be confident that what is proposed in Bill C-5, as far as it goes, would improve the health and safety regimes of our offshore oil and gas projects. However, members of my party believe we still need to ensure that the separation of health and safety concerns from those of production and economic viability occur. Justice Wells made that very clear in much more eloquent language than I.

We recognize that these two issues are very different things, but one trumps the other, and health and safety comes first. We need to make sure that, when necessary, those health and safety concerns are paramount, as they ought to be.

Bill C-5 should guarantee that the proposed chief safety officer has powerful methods of inquiry to hold operators to account. A regime of self-regulation, in our view, would be insufficient. I have already said that we do not think the chief safety officer approach is necessarily ideal. There are other things that Commissioner Wells recommended, but since that is what we are going with, let us try to make it as strong as possible.

The chief safety officer must not be influenced in decision-making by concerns of economic viability or by political pressure, which should be obvious. This individual must be a champion of a healthy and safe environment for all employees who work in our offshore oil and gas industry, or in any of those kinds of projects.

Bill C-5 has survived changes in governing parties at both the federal and provincial levels. It has received clear provincial support, and legislatures in both Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador have given the bill's mirror legislation assent, in short order. By supporting Bill C-5, we have the opportunity to improve upon legislation that has already met some of the concerns of the provinces.

If we take into account all the elements of employee health and safety, the original offshore accords, and Bill C-5 itself in those bills, this could provide the model for future negotiations between the federal government and other provinces, like Quebec for example, that are looking to develop their oil and gas sectors.

Let me conclude by noting that while Bill C-5 is a step forward, we should recognize that more work needs to be done. Hopefully, we will not have to wait another decade for that to occur.

It is not new to Canadians that our country places great economic importance on the development of natural resources. Forest products, natural gas, hydro electricity, and oil and gas are cornerstones of our export market and contribute immensely to the creation of jobs, which, of course, we believe is very important. We want Canadians to have a good quality of life that comes with jobs and opportunity. However, let us make sure that those resources are developed in a responsible and sustainable way. Let us recognize that occupational health and safety must be paramount.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. member for his comments on this very important piece of legislation.

I would like to reinforce the points that the member has made, in that both provinces have already given royal assent to their respective bills to enact these changes. They have been waiting patiently for Bill C-5 to pass through our Parliament for the new regime to come into force.

I want to confirm what I thought I heard the member say, that he and his colleagues will definitely allow for this legislation to finally come into force so that workers will not have to spend another day without these safety measures that Bill C-5 would bring.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her question. However, as she heard from my speech, I do have some concerns about amendments that were not adopted by the committee and were not supported by her party.

As I said, we think this legislation is important because it is a step in the right direction. It moves the ball forward, even if it is not as good as we would like. Therefore, we are supporting the bill. We do not have any intention to slow it down.

I should point out, of course, that the Conservative government certainly has the means to move legislation faster than it has moved this legislation. Not a week has gone by, that I can recall, in which we have not seen at least one motion of time allocation or closure by the Conservative government. I do not know if it has used it 7,000 times, but I know it is well over 50, even by last fall. The Conservatives have used these measures far more than any other government in the history of this country. For them to talk about bills not moving fast enough is a little rich, but I appreciate the question.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say. I have a question for him.

While I am no expert in the offshore sector, it seems to me that 10 years is a bit long to take to come up with the bill that is before us today. Far be it from me to simplify the complexity of such an issue.

Since this began in 2001, when the Liberals were in power, would it not have been possible to at least establish the independent regulator, as suggested in Justice Wells' recommendation 29?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.

I was not involved in the natural resources file during the period in question. I know that the provincial governments and the federal government finally discussed these issues after some time. I do find it strange, and rather astounding, that it has been 10 years. There are always various things at issue between the provincial governments and the federal government, and these complexities need to be discussed. I can understand that it might take two, three or four years, but 10 years is a very long time. I do not understand. Was it because of the change in governments? I do not know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as always, the comments from the member for Halifax West and the perspective he brings to issues like this. He spent some time sitting on the other side, so perhaps he can lend a bit of perspective to this particular issue.

There are two things I am concerned about. Number one, which the member talked about, is that it took 13 years for the provincial and federal governments to finally come together and bring this bill forward, which is an awful delay.

Number two, at the same time, there are steps being made and progress being made to strengthen health and safety rules as they relate to offshore development work. Would the member not agree that it is likewise a serious deficiency in our ability to protect workers on the offshore, that the current government is continuing to hack and slash away at search and rescue capabilities; and that if, God forbid, there is ever any need, we have a shortage of search and rescue capabilities?

Could the member could comment on that issue?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, my understanding is that governments had been in discussion for 10 years on this legislation and that we have seen the same bill brought forward a few times now. Therefore, it is surprising to me that the Conservative government did not bring it forward more expeditiously, to get it done. The Conservatives could have done that a number of times over the last eight years they have been in government. As I understand it, there were discussions going on, and I am not sure why it was not sooner than that, but that is my understanding and my recollection.

However, on the question of search and rescue, the people I know who have some knowledge of search and rescue across the country have been very concerned about the Conservatives' attitude toward this area. Whether it is in the offshore, in our North or on either of the coasts and throughout the country, we have not seen the kind of interest. We have seen cutbacks to search and rescue. We have a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are very concerned about the lack of effective search and rescue equipment in that region and throughout the country. My hon. colleague has raised a very important point.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague who attended the committee hearings a question. There has been a lot of discussion about recommendation no. 29, the recommendation made by Chief Justice Wells in his inquiry. The government is acknowledging that it is not putting it in this bill.

At committee, was it the stance of Chief Justice Wells that recommendation no. 29 was still an important recommendation?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Wells certainly made it clear that he believed it was an important recommendation. He talked about the circumstances of his report. I thought he was a very impressive witness. Many of us on the committee, in view of the work he did on that commission, felt a certain deference to his opinions. Nevertheless, the government has chosen not to adopt recommendation no. 29. I think that is unfortunate. In the future we ought to seriously look at separating that function of health and safety. Obviously, the government would not reconsider it now, at third reading of the bill. However, I hope the government would at least reflect on this question and look for ways to improve it in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go a little further on this whole question about how long it took to get to this stage because, unfortunately, we have had a number of disasters in our region that we can point to. There seems to be a pattern of delay before we implement the kind of legislation, rules, and enforcement regulations that we need to have in place to ensure that these things do not happen.

I wonder if my colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Halifax West, would indicate to me what steps he and his government took when they were on the opposite side to correct these problems.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the other parties like to go back eight, ten years, and so forth, and talk about what the Liberal government did at that time. It is quite a while ago now, so it is interesting that they continue to do that, but it is a good sign when they try to throw barbs in our direction and challenge us on things. They are certainly paying attention and must be concerned about our party.

The fact is, if we do go back that long, I was very engaged, particularly as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with concerns about search and rescue and the Coast Guard. I very strongly supported measures to improve the situation for our Coast Guard. In fact, we announced funding for new Coast Guard vessels, which took quite a while for the following government to bring to fruition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow some of my colleagues in the debate on Bill C-5. Having been a member of the natural resources committee for eight years, and having now left it, this was the last major piece of work I had the opportunity to work on with my colleagues from all parties. Unfortunately, I had moved prior to getting to clause-by-clause review, which would have been interesting. Nonetheless, I got a chance to listen to a lot of the testimony before committee. We had some great witnesses. We had very cordial discussion and a lot of good feedback. It was a good committee experience.

What I am going to talk about today is the importance of the offshore. I will spend a few moments on that. Then what I would like to do is to talk about what led to Bill C-5 and why it is important. Then I would like to talk about some of the major things the bill does and some of the comments made by Justice Wells.

Certainly, as a lot of people have said in testimony earlier today, we know how important natural resources are to our country, and specifically the east coast. As my colleague, the member for Halifax West, just pointed out a minute ago, we have a lot of people working on the offshore and the potential for expansion of that resource opportunity not only helps the folks in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but also P.E.I. and New Brunswick, whether it be by providing services or by labourers actually going there. In some cases, it is a lot better trip for some of our families to be able to go to an east coast location, as opposed to travelling west.

For that reason, we want to continue to ensure that Canada's natural resource sectors remain open to investment that is market oriented and in the long-term interests of Canadians. We will ensure that the jobs, opportunities, and economic growth created by our natural wealth are available to all Canadians. In the Atlantic offshore, this wealth is chiefly in the energy sector, particularly oil and natural gas. The strength of Canada's energy sector is well established, but as strong as Canada's energy sector is today, it offers even greater potential for the future.

Canadians living in Atlantic Canada already know what a difference a strong energy industry can make to communities' quality of life. Offshore oil and gas has literally transformed the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, in 2011, the energy sector in Newfoundland and Labrador employed nearly 5,000 people and accounted for roughly one-third of provincial nominal GDP. Between 1997 and 2013, the province collected about $7.8 billion in statutory royalties from offshore oil and gas. Now, as we begin 2014, the future is even brighter. The offshore energy sector in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia is still growing and the industry continues to invest billions of dollars in new energy projects.

Our government supports energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs and generate economic growth for Canadians, but it will do so only if these projects can be proven to be safe for Canadians and only after we have the proper reviews.

Our commitment to responsible resource development is made for environmental reasons as well as economic ones. Our plan will ensure that there is stronger protection by introducing tough new financial penalties for companies that do no comply with environmental regulations, and establishes new measures to strengthen Canada's world class pipeline and marine safety regimes. However, we have to remember that one of the major regulatory items is to protect people through a rigorous offshore safety regime. That is why we introduced Bill C-5, to ensure that offshore industries can carry out their activities safely.

I would like to read into the record some testimony from Mr. Jeff Labonté, the director general of the energy safety and security branch at the Department of Natural Resources. He said:

The work on the legislative package before Parliament got under way almost a dozen years ago. It was following an accident in Nova Scotia in which a worker in a workplace was killed. In that particular accident, the accord acts originally separated operational safety, the operations of the technical units and things that are happening in the offshore, which was imbedded within the accord acts, and occupational health and safety as a separate area which fell under the provincial jurisdiction.

All of a sudden, we had a grey area here where it was hard to determine who was actually responsible, what would happen and who would actually regulate this going forward. That led to a 12-year process and our Bill C-5.

The bill is approximately 260 to 270 pages long. Members who were on the committee and actually went through the review know that roughly 200 of those pages took occupational health and safety regulations out and put them into the accord acts. It was to mirror the legislation between the provinces and the federal government. We want the offshore industries to abide by the most stringent standards. We need to identify and clarify things, and that was the reason we did that.

Interestingly enough, some of the earlier comments were about why this took so long. It started in 2002 and it was a 12-year process. A lot of us in the House, even if we have only been here a short period of time, understand that sometimes it can take a while to get federal-provincial deals negotiated. What ended up happening is that it went through a period until about 2007, when there was a realization that further work was needed on the governance aspect of the bill. It had to go back, and obviously there were a lot of iterations between the provinces and the federal government to make sure that the legislation was mirrored properly.

Those things took some time. We had some governmental issues with respect to the minority governments that happened during those times.

I believe it was under an NDP government in Nova Scotia that the legislation passed, and a PC government in Newfoundland. They are now waiting for us to do our process with Bill C-5.

The accord acts already provide the regulatory cornerstone for all oil and gas activities in the Atlantic offshore. They give the independent regulators, the two offshore boards we have been talking about this morning, the legal authority to regulate oil and gas activities on behalf of the Governments of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

They clearly establish the health and safety requirements within the accord acts. For the essential matters of occupational health and safety, and operational safety in the offshore, Bill C-5 fully clarifies the roles and responsibilities of all concerned parties, governments, regulators, employers, and workers.

The legislation also has other practical benefits and gives new powers to the offshore inspectors to further enhance safety. For example, inspectors will now be authorized to inspect anything, take samples, and meet privately with individuals. Further, inspectors will now have the power to conduct compliance audits on the vessels used to transport workers, and if the workers themselves have any safety concerns, Bill C-5 allows them to refuse to be transported to the offshore sites.

I just want to speak to the issue of the chief safety officer's power. It has been strengthened. In my experience in construction projects before coming into this area, it was always my understanding, whenever I went to a construction site, that the chief safety officer had full ability to shut a site down. They could do that carte blanche. That is independence. Even if those safety officers actually reported to project managers, they really had a higher calling and a higher power.

This safety officer, referring to some of the testimony from Mr. Jeff Labonté, said:

The final area that I will cover is that of the chief safety officer. First, to ensure that safety considerations are always represented, the legislation proposes that the position of the chief safety officer can never be held by a CEO of the board. In addition, a chief safety officer would have to review and provide written recommendations related to safety on all operational authorizations. This would formalize a process that both boards have already been following and is a practice of ensuring that safety is a priority. Chief safety officers would also be granted the power to allow regulatory substitutions.

As everyone knows, when we start talking about these regulatory substitutions, technology moves very fast in the offshore environment. For example, if a new piece of equipment comes out that is going to make workers safer, a chief safety officer would have the ability to authorize its approval to substitute it for something already out there.

Those are important things to make sure that our workers are safe, which this legislation and the regulations keep up.

During his appearance at the natural resources committee in December, Justice Wells spoke about the legislation. He said:

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.

Justice Wells was very clear in the committee that he was pleased with the offshore health and safety legislation. He was also clear that good has come of the government's adoption of his recommendations.

We also talked at length at committee with two individuals. They were Mr. Scott Tessier, who is the chair and CEO of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, and Mr. Stuart Pinks, who is the CEO of the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. We had a significant opportunity to question those folks. In fact, one of them was actually a former chief safety officer. I asked him about the qualifications of the chief safety officers, the kinds of things they do, and the process. He said that he was the chief safety officer for a number of years and that there is a strict selection process for chief safety officers. They are often long-tenured employees who stay with these boards for very long periods of time and build up institutional knowledge so that they are able to continue doing their jobs effectively.

Some of the other things they talked about were privacy requirements. They are not allowed to publish certain types of things when it comes to safety. With this legislation, when it comes to safety, they would be able to publish this for the public.

A lot of what was said was that it is not just for the actual workers on the site but for their families as well. We always need to be concerned about their families. They should be able to see that everything is safe. What is actually happening is important to the families, as well.

Justice Wells and the two CEOs also talked about safety forums, which have now started. They have just conducted the fifth of these safety forums. They received a tremendous amount of feedback from the workers who now, as part of this important piece of the legislation, have three major rights. They have the right to know, the right to participate in the discussions, and the right to refuse dangerous work. They are all important aspects for these workers. These safety forums allow for these types of discussions to happen and for the appropriate actions to take place. I talked previously about the safety equipment and substitutions.

There was a lot of good feedback. The Unifor representative talked about the safety regulator. I am sure that someone will ask me that question during the questions and comments.

In summary, there is no doubt that Bill C-5 would significantly enhance worker safety in the offshore by creating a much more transparent safety regime, with clear responsibilities for all involved. Our Conservative government worked with our provincial partners on this. I want to emphasize that this was a partnership, because this legislation has to be mirrored at the federal and provincial levels. It would give us a much more modern, efficient, and stringent offshore safety regime, one that is supported by strong laws and standards that are second to none.

The Conservative government is committed to freer trade and to maintaining an open marketplace that welcomes investment. It is committed to providing a regulatory regime for major projects that is fair, transparent, and predictable. It is committed to enhancing Canadian competitiveness in the economic sector.

I am encouraged and really pleased to see that members from the opposite side are going to support this bill. It represents a big and important move of the yardstick forward in terms of offshore health and safety for our workers and in terms of the well-being of their families. I appreciate their support. Hopefully, we will be able to get this passed quickly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague opposite approaches issues like this in a very conscientious manner. He spoke at some length trying to justify why it took so long for this legislation to finally hit the floor here. I do not think there is any question that needing to mesh with the provincial jurisdictions and the offshore authorities is complicated. However, that also goes to the justification for the NDP amendment that was introduced in committee.

It has taken a long time to get this legislation through. A lot of work has been done to try to make sure that it covers everything off. We have noted some weaknesses, one being with regard to the independent regulator. As is always the case, there will need to be some revisions. That is why the NDP introduced its amendment, which was to ensure that the minister would conduct a review of the bill within five years.

I would like to ask the member if he would agree that, given the complexity of this matter, we should have tried to make sure—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order. I would ask all hon. members to co-operate with the Chair during questions and comments when a signal is given to wrap up a question or answer. It would be appreciated.

The hon. member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. The root of the answer to that lies in the process that took place between the federal and provincial governments over a period of 12 years.

As I indicated, in 2007, the parties realized, all of a sudden, that the governance piece needed to be improved. Both levels of government had to work together to do that. Both provincial governments had actually passed their legislation. Therefore, their legislation would have had to change as well, so they would have had to go back to the drawing board. That is my understanding of the process that happened. As a result, it was important to make sure that there was no major change to the legislation that would necessitate a change to the mirror legislation in the provinces. Therein lies the answer to that question.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, development of offshore resources is a priority and must be done safely, and I believe that this legislation would ensure that safety. I would like the member for Tobique—Mactaquac to elaborate on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. Basically, it would fill a gap in a grey area in the legislation. There was operational responsibility for safety under the accords, but the occupational health and safety side was not covered at all. When the person was tragically killed, there was much difficulty at the time assigning responsibility.

By mirroring this legislation, it would adopt very stringent occupational health and safety aspects. I commented that almost 200 pages are very detailed occupational health and safety aspects that were brought into the accord acts. When one reads through them, the number of occupational health and safety committees, the powers of the boards, and the power of the safety officers are phenomenal. They can actually stop work, and the workers can refuse dangerous work. It is tremendous. It also covers the transportation to the actual offshore platforms, which is the piece that was missing before.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's analysis of this legislation. The one thing I am concerned about is that in phase one of the inquiry report of Justice Wells, he said that he believed recommendation 29 would be the most important one in this entire report. That, of course, called for a new independent and stand-alone safety regulator being established to regulate safety in the offshore, and that was not done.

Since Justice Wells said that this was the most important recommendation, I would like to ask my hon. colleague why the Conservatives did not follow through on that recommendation.

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

Mr. Speaker, Justice Wells had 29 recommendations in his report, and number 29 was not an all-encompassing recommendation. In fact, recommendation 29 was broken into two sections, 29(a) and 29(b). As we heard in testimony from Justice Wells, he thought “...a separate safety authority was a good thing, but I was perceptive enough to realize that not everybody might agree, and I hold no grudge about that. Therefore I put in the second thing. Canada's offshore is Newfoundland and Nova Scotia” and is actually small compared to other areas. He thought this was a good position for us. He broke recommendation 29 into two components. Therefore, we cannot look at it as an all-encompassing recommendation and take it as a whole, because there were competing parts.

As we heard from the CEOs, 16 of the 29 recommendations have been implemented, 12 are in the process of being implemented, and 29(b) will be implemented.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we see with this agreement a progressive and comprehensive collaboration between the federal government and provincial jurisdictions. We see the results when the federal government works with other jurisdictions to solve some of the very important issues we have before us.

I would like the hon. member to comment on the importance of the federal government working with the provinces, sitting down and rolling up their sleeves, and dealing with the issues at hand, collaboratively, with the provinces.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know that our minister responsible for New Brunswick has forged a great relationship with the Province of New Brunswick and is working well in all aspects with respect to projects and so on. From that standpoint, I do not see that as an issue.

We just worked very diligently on coming to a conclusion on the job grant, for example. We are signing agreements on the infrastructure agreements. Those things are coming together. This is another example of how the provinces and the federal government came together with respect to a very difficult, comprehensive, and complex piece of legislation. That is why it was important to make sure that we did not get too carried away on amendments that would send each party back to the table again to redo their legislative process.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that there was consideration at committee stage of a five-year review of this legislation to see whether it could be improved in light of experience and in light of the fact that recommendation 29 of Mr. Justice Wells' report was rejected.

Why would the government not accept the need, as is found in so many other statutes in federal legislation, for a five-year review, required in the statute?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that before, but I will elaborate again. As part of this whole process, this was mirrored legislation that had to go through between the parties. The provinces had already passed theirs. This would have led to sending them back through an iterative process to change it. That is part of the process. Having gone through 12 years, then a process from 2002 to 2007, then a bunch of other changes in governance, to now, this is where we are.

I know for a fact, but I will elaborate, that the federal government and the provinces are still in discussions about the future of this, because the Atlantic offshore is actually small compared to the other jurisdictions, which have a central regulator. As Justice Wells said, when we get to the point where maybe we are on the Arctic offshore or the western offshore, there might be more discussions that would have to take place,

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to weigh in on this important issue again. I had the opportunity to speak on this at second reading, at which time I indicated my support for this legislation and for the measures. I was pleased that the two levels of government, the two provincial governments and the federal government, were finally able to reach agreement. The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Province of Nova Scotia passed mirror legislation, and the federal government is now following suit.

I want to focus my presentation today on where we go next. It is extremely important that we get the best piece of legislation that we can to serve the purposes laid out in the legislation. However, if we do not have the enforcement and the political will to make it happen then, frankly, we will go back to the decades when the offshore on the east cost was covered by draft regulations. We will go back to something we see far too often as it relates to private industry, in particular in the fields that are so dangerous. I speak of the whole practice of voluntary compliance. In that, governments expect the companies and individuals involved in any particular industry to be safe and careful and to not put workers at risk.

We know that public sector and private sector entities conduct risk analysis at every opportunity, before they put in any constraints on their practices whatsoever. Before a private sector company introduces any, in this case, safety measures or the use of safety equipment, it will do a very careful analysis on what the chances are that anything is going to happen, that there are going to be problems, that there is a risk there will be a loss of limb and life and, even at that point, what the exposure of that company is to liability.

That is why it is so important for governments to take their responsibility seriously in protecting people who are not protected, whether they are citizens, customers, clients, or workers. In the case of the Ocean Ranger, the 84 people who lost their lives, and in the case of the Cougar helicopter, the 17 people who lost their lives, nobody represented them. Nobody went to the effort to ensure there were constraints on the private sector companies that controlled what was going to happen to them when those workers at their jobs were carrying out their responsibilities. That is why it is incumbent upon us, not only to pass legislation to prevent these kinds of things, but also to ensure that the legislation is enforced, to ensure there is the political will in place, and that there are provisions in the legislation to ensure that people or companies that contravene provisions of the legislation are held accountable.

We had a terrible tragedy in Nova Scotia, in 1992, where 26 miners lost their lives. There was a royal commission held that made a number of recommendations. It led to Bill C-45, which was passed in this House, I believe in 2004.

It was called the Westray bill, and it was done to assign corporate responsibility. That legislation makes all decision-makers in a company responsible for the results of bad decisions or decisions that lead to the loss of life. Yet, since 2004, 22 years after that disaster happened, there have been a couple of charges but absolutely no convictions.

That underlines my point. We need to make sure that the responsibilities are laid out in the legislation. We need enforcement. We also need to make sure that people are held accountable. Ultimately, it all comes down to political will.

This legislation would only take us part of the way. We are only beginning to move in the right direction toward ensuring that the industry has a proper health and safety regime, as well as regulations.

However, our responsibility does not end here. We need to ensure that as development continues we work harder to make sure the people working in this environment are protected, and that the environment itself is protected.

I want to refer to Lana Payne, the Atlantic director of Unifor, who testified at the natural resources committee. She said that “Canada is still far behind other industrialized oil economies such as Norway, the United Kingdom, Australia...[and] the United States” in having “powerful stand-alone authority in charge of safety and the environment...”.

The member who spoke before me seemed to suggest that we do not have a stand-alone regulator here. We do not need it. It is a small jurisdiction. It is smaller than the Arctic or the west coast or some of these other countries. The member should say that to the 82 families who lost loved ones when the Ocean Ranger went down. He should say that to the 17 families of the workers who lost their lives when the Cougar helicopter went down.

If development is going to be conducted off the coast of our country, then we need to ensure that proper protections are in place, as in other countries. We have not done enough. We need to do better. We in the New Democratic Party will do everything in our power to ensure that this country does a better job in this area.

It is important for the federal government to continue working with the provinces and offshore boards in this area. There is no doubt about that.

I wish the government had considered the amendment that was introduced by our members on the natural resources committee. That amendment would have seen a review by the minister after five years. We would have known whether the legislation was actually accomplishing, not only what it set out to accomplish, but whether the government was showing the political will to enforce it and to hold people accountable. That happens with other legislation. It is not new. Things change, and try as we might, we might miss provisions that we should have perhaps picked up on. A five-year review would indicate whether we had run into any difficulties. A five-year review would ensure that 10 years or 13 years out we have done our due diligence with respect to making this happen.

I will refer to the intervention by my friend Dr. Susan Dodd, who wrote the book The Ocean Ranger: Remaking the Promise of Oil . Susan lost her brother when the Ocean Ranger went down. I spoke at some length about Susan's work in this area at second reading, but let me say again how much I value her opinion and the exhaustive research that she engaged in to prepare her book.

Before committee, Susan rightly identified that the “failure to regulate leads not only to the loss of life and the destruction of the environment, but also to the public's losing confidence in the legitimacy of government”. Disasters, such as the Ocean Ranger, Westray—and I referred to the explosion of the coal mine in Pictou County, in 1992—and the Deepwater Horizon, are also political disasters. People appropriately asked why it was that regulations did not exist or were not strong enough. Why were there weaknesses in the system and why were they not addressed years before?

Too often, changes to health and safety come about as a reaction to an event rather than as a preventative measure. I would suggest that this needs to be changed.

When I was preparing for these remarks, I looked at the Westray example. I was a member of the legislature in 1992 when that disaster happened. Within the next day or so, I sat with families in Stellarton who were trying to understand the magnitude of the disaster and whether their loved ones might still be alive. In the initial days of that disaster, it was a rescue effort.

We had a commission of inquiry, which did not table its reports until 1998. There were 74 recommendations, and section 73 led to Bill C-45.

I talked abut the need to hold decision-makers accountable. In the Westray situation, they found that there were decisions made or not made that directly led to the explosion and the loss of life. Everyone recognized that the people who had the responsibility for making decisions did not make those decisions, or they made decisions understanding that a result there could be a disaster, an explosion, which happened. Those people need to be held accountable, and that is what led to Bill C-45.

Here we are 22 years later, and we still have not been able to hold people accountable for these kinds of workplace disasters. That is why I worry very much about our sense of satisfaction when we pass a piece of legislation like this.

We have been at this for 13 years. We worked with the other jurisdictions and we got it through. When it passes through this House and finally receives royal assent, we have done our job. However, that is just the beginning. That is the point I am trying to make; it is simply just the beginning. We need to do so much more to make sure that we fulfill our responsibilities in representing the people of this country.

Let me make it clear. I certainly do not have all the answers on how we protect workers in the offshore industry or how we protect our environment. That is why I feel compelled, as an individual MP and a member of this House, to say we need to be ever vigilant and be always listening and always paying attention, so we can ensure that the right thing is done, that we correct our mistakes, and that we move quickly, because we are responsible to represent not only people who work in that industry but also the environment, in the event of oil spills. As my colleague from St. John's East said, there will be a third rig in operation in 2017, even farther off the coast of Newfoundland. They are exploring, again, off the coast of Nova Scotia and in the gulf. It may be inevitable that there will be further development of these resources, but we cannot proceed without ensuring that we are protecting the people who work in the industry and protecting the environment, because once those disasters happen, those lives are lost and that environment is damaged, in many cases, forever.

Let me make a couple of suggestions.

First, I call upon the current government, and any government, to support the recommendation that has gone before Transport Canada to ensure that all airplanes and helicopters that are used for search and rescue and to transport workers to and from the oil rigs must have the capability to operate for an hour after they have no oil or have run dry. That has been a recommendation--in fact, it was 30 minutes, I believe—and that recommendation has still not been put in place. Even after it was determined to be one of the problems that led to the disaster with the Cougar helicopter, that still has not been implemented. I think it is extremely important that we ensure regulation is put into place. We know this is a fairly standard requirement for helicopters that operate off the coast, to give them time to land safely.

Second, the government needs to reverse its cuts to search and rescue and ensure that our SAR teams have the equipment necessary, and in working order, to carry out their missions as quickly as possible. These are life and death situations that these people are responding to in Atlantic Canada and around our coasts. It is too often the case that search and rescue missions are hampered because our dated equipment is not functioning or the teams are unable to arrive in a timely manner.

I think it is important that I also make a plug for the environment, in this respect. As I have already said, Canada is lagging behind once again. While the government has recently introduced legislation to increase oil and gas spill liability to $1 billion, this amount pales in comparison with the actual costs of the spill cleanup and the impact on our environment and local economies.

To wrap up, there is still a lot of work to be done to strengthen the safety of the offshore industry for our workers and for our environment. While Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction, I think it is incumbent upon the government to continue to work with the provinces, the stakeholders, and industry to prevent future disasters.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, both provinces have already given royal assent to their respective bills to enact these changes, as has been noted. They are waiting patiently for Bill C-5 to pass through the House of Commons and come into force.

Justice Wells appeared at the natural resources committee and said he was pleased with the legislation. He stated:

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.

My question for the member opposite is this. Did he read the transcript of that meeting, and does he have any comments to make?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will say that Commissioner Wells gave compelling testimony at committee. There is no doubt he worked hard to bring forward the important recommendations that led to the compilation of this piece of legislation.

He was also pushed on his recommendation 29, which called for an independent regulator, because he was suggesting that, although it does not have a single regulator in it, it is a good step forward nonetheless. He did acknowledge that the single regulator recommendation that he made, which is in existence in other oil producing nations, is extremely important and is not something that should be forgotten.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague bringing us back to the terrible tragedy of Westray. Coming from a mining community, our families were certainly very struck by that. I remember being in Stobie Mine one time, and there was a safety sign on the wall. A miner said to me, “They only ever put that after someone loses an arm or after someone dies”. All the safety recommendations come after tragedies, which is why I would like to ask my hon. colleague about the importance of maintaining a full complement for search and rescue offshore, because we cannot afford to think maybe it will not happen. These things do happen, and we need to have the full force of the law and the search and rescue capacity.

Justice Wells talked about the need to have an independent board set up, yet the current government seems to show no interest in that.

The Minister of Natural Resources of Newfoundland and Labrador said that, while discussions have been ongoing with the federal government on the implementation of recommendation 29, the federal government has not indicated any interest in establishing a separate safety agency.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. We have seen search and rescue capability reduced under the current government. Offices have been closed and cut back. Their capacity and equipment are limited. In other words, our ability to respond is a serious problem.

During Dr. Dodd's testimony at committee, she made an interesting reference. She was recounting a conversation she had with John Crosbie, former lieutenant-governor of Newfoundland and Labrador and a long-standing member of this House, wherein he said to her, “We still don't know how to get those men off those rigs”. That goes to the whole question of the safety regime, but it more importantly goes to the resources that we put into search and rescue. We are not doing a good job in that respect.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North to speak to Bill C-5, the offshore health and safety act.

This bill is a culmination of over 12 years of negotiations that started back in 2001 between the federal government and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, as we all know, no bill is perfect. This bill is certainly not perfect, but 13 years later this bill is well past due. I am glad to see that this important step forward is being taken.

It is far past time that this legislated offshore safety regime be put into place. All workers, whether they work onshore in our communities or offshore, deserve to work in a safe environment and to have their rights protected. This bill places the overall responsibility for occupational health and safety on the operator. This means that the employer is responsible for implementation and coordination, although employees are still expected to take all reasonable measures to comply with occupational health and safety measures.

There are basically three principles in this bill: first, the offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections at least as good as those that exist for onshore workers; second, the protection of employees' rights; and third, support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace.

These basic principles address protections that should be available to all workers. It is a shame that offshore workers have had to wait this long for these protections to be afforded to them.

It comes as no shock to me that the Conservatives waited this long to bring this legislation to the House. This is not the first time we have seen the Conservatives drag their feet and delay long overdue legislation.

However, now that we have finally reached the point where we can give these offshore workers the protection they deserve, this bill represents a very necessary improvement to the current offshore health and safety regime, by finally placing safety practices in legislation.

My NDP colleagues and I have been calling for this type of strengthened regime for several years, and we are proud to support Bill C-5 at this stage.

I mentioned earlier that this bill is not perfect, and I would like to explain my comment. The glaring deficiency in this bill is the federal government's refusal to implement recommendation 29 of the Wells inquiry. The Wells inquiry took place after the March 2009 crash of a helicopter approximately 30 nautical miles from St. John's, that left 17 dead and 1 lone survivor.

Before Justice Wells made recommendation 29, he said:

I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire Report.

This is a direct quote from the author of this inquiry who made this recommendation. He pointed out that recommendation 29 was “the most important” of all the recommendations. Here is what it said:

29. (a) It is recommended that a new, independent, and standalone Safety Regulator....

An alternative option was also recommended in this report. However, unfortunately, Bill C-5 fails to establish either of these options. It seems the government is not committed to establishing this necessary reform and closing the gap that remains.

On this side of the House, we are committed to working with the Nova Scotia government and the Newfoundland and Labrador government to further strengthen health and safety by working towards the creation of an independent stand-alone safety regulator, as recommended by the Wells inquiry.

As Canadians, we should strive to set an example for the rest of the world. We should be leaders on the global stage. However, time and time again, we are faced with examples showing that we are not keeping up with global best practices. This has been apparent.

I made a speech just the other day when we debated Bill C-22. Canada is not keeping pace with the international standards set for nuclear and offshore gas liability. I will give an example, specifically how we are not even making the polluters pay for it themselves. I talked about my son and my daughter and the liability issues that are in Bill C-22.

The current liability for offshore gas, oil, or nuclear disasters is about $75 million, which we would now increase to $1 billion. We have seen the nuclear disaster in Japan and the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. Recently, we had the 25th anniversary of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on the west coast, where I am from. We know for a fact that $250 billion is the rough estimate now of the cost of the disaster in Japan. The cost is in the tens of billions of dollars in the Gulf of Mexico, and it is the same for the Valdez disaster in the Pacific Ocean off B.C.

My point is that we are increasing the liability for these disasters to $1 billion for the corporations, the people who are producing the gas and oil, and the private industries that are operating our nuclear plants and so on. I will use an analogy from my own home shortly. The sum of $1 billion is not enough to clean up the mess that has caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. In other words, corporations are getting a free ride if there is a disaster, because guess who would be left holding the bag? It would be the taxpayers, Canadians, who are held liable for the rest of the cleanup.

We are not looking at other countries and the standards that are out there. We could look at other countries, such as Germany and other European countries, that have substantially higher liability for these issues.

I used the example of my kids the other day. My son is seven years old. He makes a mess and he does not want to clean it up. He cleans up a little bit of it, and he wants his sister to clean up the rest of it. His sister comes to me and says no, it is his mess and he should clean it up. My wife and I have explained to my son that it is his mess and that he needs to clean it up. He cannot pass on his mess to someone else.

That is what we are doing. We are not looking at other standards. That is what we are doing with regard to the liability issues for nuclear disasters, oil, and gas.

We need to look at other governments among our partners, including south of the border and other nations, to find ways of improving it. That is the case in this particular situation, where one of the major recommendations is to have an independent regulator, as Justice Wells pointed out. We need a new independent and stand-alone safety regulator, and we need to look at what other countries are doing for best practices. We have not done our job here. That was one of the recommendations made by the Wells inquiry. It clearly pointed out that this was the most important recommendation. Again, it was ignored by the Conservatives.

Countries like the U.K., Australia, Norway, and the United States have all recognized the value of an independent offshore regulator and have taken steps to put it into action. Why should the Canadian offshore gas industry and Canadian workers be treated any differently? That is my question for the Conservatives. Why should our offshore industries and workers be treated any differently from their counterparts in our partner countries around the world, whether in Europe or south of the border?

Instead of setting an example, with Canadians being leaders in a particular area with other countries to follow, we are lagging behind. It is time we reversed this trend.

Here is another example. We are world leaders when it comes to conducting elections. We are viewed as a model for other countries. We also learn from other countries. We use some of their best practices and they use some of ours. I am very proud as a Canadian that our election model is used worldwide to conduct fair elections. What are we doing in our country? We have had the top three electoral authorities, the elections commissioner, Elections Canada people, and Mr. Neufeld, testify at committee that the changes being brought forward by the Conservatives in the unfair elections act will not strengthen our current electoral system. In fact, they will disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Canadians. That is not an example we want to set. We want to go in the right direction. The right direction is to improve the systems that we have in place and to ensure that not only are our democratic values protected, but also our offshore workers, so that they have the same safety level as onshore workers. It is a very disturbing trend that we are witnessing from the government. We need to improve the safety of our workers, onshore and offshore.

Not only does the bill not provide an independent, stand-alone safety regulator, or an autonomous safety division within the petroleum board, but our efforts to provide for a review of the bill in five years were also voted down by the Conservatives at committee. This, yet again, demonstrates the Conservatives' lack of interest in further strengthening the bill. Allowing for a review of the bill in five years' time would have provided an opportunity to re-evaluate whether an independent safety regulator were needed. Even if the government did not put in the safety regulator in the first place, we asked at committee for a review after five years. Perhaps they would find evidence that we do need an independent safety regulator.

When we talk about evidence, it is very clear that science and facts do not really figure into the Conservative equation, whether on the environment or jobs. The government is using Kijiji facts to inflate the number of jobs created in the country. I have never actually used Kijiji, so I looked it up today. It is a website for people to trade household goods. In fact, one can actually buy a used tie on Kijiji, or used shoes, and there are other things created on the site. The fact that the government, which is allergic to research and facts, uses Kijiji of all websites to inflate the number of jobs available in the country makes ones suspicious of the other facts brought forward by the government.

I talked about the unfair elections act. The Conservatives say there have been many irregularities and that we need to strengthen our Elections Canada Act. They say “We need to make it fair, that there have been 15,000 irregularities.” When asked how many people were charged since Confederation with fraudulent use of voter identification cards and voter fraud, the answer is zero. The government cannot come up with any examples. Oh, it does have examples it makes up. I know that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville brought up some facts that he had to retract because they were false. Those are the kinds of facts and figures that Conservatives make up. It is unfortunate that they do this.

The real facts would be for them to concede that they are not appointing the regulator now, but that we should further evaluate the issue. That would make sense, that we would look at it five years from now and re-evaluate the situation to see if we needed a regulator. But the Conservatives turned that down. I have been here for a number of years now and we have seen thousands and thousands of recommendations made at committee to improve bills. We have heard from expert witnesses and stakeholders begging the government to make changes that would be beneficial to the stakeholders, the very people the laws would affect, and we have seen very few if any amendments adopted at committee stage.

I know that was not always the case. Usually members of Parliament were able to propose amendments to bills and improve them. That is the work of Parliament, to improve the legislation brought forward. That is my job, to bring forward the views of my constituents and the very people who are being affected by this. But, unfortunately, the Conservatives, who get their marching orders from the Prime Minister's Office, are told how they should go about this. We are seeing the same thing happen with the unfair elections act at committee. Reasonable amendments have been provided to improve the bill, but the Conservatives have again chosen to reject the amendments on a technical basis. Due diligence and good governance require the review of legislation, particularly in this case where we are dealing with complex legislation involving multiple levels of government. The behaviour here is consistent with the Conservatives' unwillingness to consider amendments that would strengthen the legislation coming to the floor of the House. It is not the first time we have seen this, and I can guarantee it will not be the last.

Finally, I want to point out how refreshing it is to see a bill that represents the collaborative efforts of the provinces and the federal government, although it has taken eight or nine years to bring it to this stage. I am happy that finally the Conservatives were able to collaborate with the provinces.

I can give a couple of examples where Conservatives have failed to collaborate. I would like to announce to the House that I am very pleased that Port Metro Vancouver is up and running. Port Metro Vancouver is one of the largest ports in Canada. It employees directly or indirectly 60,000 workers. There has been a strike going on for the last four weeks. This dispute has been simmering since 2005. The truckers had brought to the government's attention over the last eight or nine years some of the issues they were having locally. What have governments been doing? They have done nothing over the last seven years to address these issues.

Last week, the Prime Minister went to Vancouver and said it was not a federal problem, but a B.C. problem. The B.C. government said that it was not its problem, that it was actually the federal government's problem. So with a problem that has been simmering for eight or nine years, the federal government and the provincial government could not figure out whose problem it was and we have lost billions of dollars as a result from the strike. I would put the blame squarely on the Conservative government and its inability to collaborate with the province.

Again, this bill could be greatly strengthened. One of the things it lacks is recommendation 29, which calls for an independent regulator.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend across the way.

I have a couple of questions for him. First, has he ever heard of Vince Ready? If so, how did he get involved with the dispute at the port?

Also, it appears that the NDP is promoting Kijiji. Do any of the New Democrats have any actual interests in there, and did they use Kijiji for the renting of facilities to promote the NDP in ridings that it does not hold?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We are always told that we have to deal with government business instead of those kinds of cheap shots. We are dealing with a serious issue here, the safety of lives, so if the man wants to do a clown act, I would prefer that he does it outside and not within the chamber.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

First, in response to the member for Timmins—James Bay, some of the language in his point of order itself probably goes beyond what is necessary.

That said, the hon. member for Surrey North took great breadth in his speech. He referred to many issues that arguably are not directly related to Bill C-5 and wandered afield. The subsequent question from the member for Langley followed up on two of the points raised by the member for Surrey North, neither one of which would seem to have much to do with the matter before the House.

I am going to go to the member for Surrey North for a very brief response. However, I would like to remind all hon. members of the matter that is before the House, which is Bill C-5. Both the questions and the answers ought to refer to it.

The hon. member for Surrey North.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have quite a bit of leeway in regard to how we speak to the bill and I tried to bring different aspects to this discussion. I thank the member for asking the question in regard to Vince Ready and Port Metro Vancouver. Vince Ready is a very respected mediator in Vancouver, and I do respect him.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The member for Surrey North is in an awkward position in trying to answer a question that clearly has nothing to do with the bill. Therefore, I am going to move on.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, when we are looking at issues on the offshore, we can all agree that this bill does go a long way toward improving the regulatory environment for safety. It has been a long time coming.

Does my colleague from Surrey North not agree that it would have been preferable if we had a more independent safety officer in this regime, as he indicated this in his remarks? He could perhaps expand on this point. That issue, to me, is the weakness of the bill we have in front of us.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course we have been calling for that measure. It is important to have independent regulators for health and safety hazard issues. We have actually been advocating for that. In fact, one of the key recommendations from the Wells inquiry was to establish an independent regulator to oversee health and safety. Again, we had offered an amendment to the bill that called for a review after five years.

We would think the government would look at some of the facts and figures, and that is why I brought up Kijiji earlier on. However, unfortunately, the current government does not look at facts and figures.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and commend him on his excellent speech. He provided a good overview of this bill and all the other nonsense that occurred this week in the House of Commons.

The NDP did excellent work during review in committee at report stage. The excellent NDP members on the committee took part in the discussions and listened to the witnesses. What is more, we proposed an amendment, which unfortunately was rejected by the Conservatives.

I do not understand why the Conservatives rejected this very simple amendment. It simply proposes a five-year delay before implementing the bill and determining whether or not there should be an independent, stand-alone offshore safety regulator.

Why did the Conservatives vote against this reasonable amendment? Could my hon. colleague explain this aberration to me? It seems quite reasonable to me to review this legislation every five years.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who asks lots of questions. We are seatmates, and I thank him for going on record to ask me this particular question.

I cannot speculate on why the Conservatives do not want an independent safety regulator. It makes on this side of the House for someone who is independent to be regulating the health and safety of Canadian workers.

That said, the member pointed out that New Democrats had moved an amendment to have this matter reviewed after five years. That would be the next logical step: to look at the facts and figures and see if the current regime was working. If it was not working, then we could take the extra step of providing an additional health and safety envelope for our workers, whether they are onshore or offshore.

With regard to the amendment, I will say on the record again that the government is allergic to facts and to some good ideas, and not only from the opposition. They are allergic to some good amendments even from the very stakeholders that many bills introduced by the government are going to affect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is great for us to acknowledge the health and safety needs of workers, in particular the offshore and onshore workers, but we should not confuse that with a very strong federal initiative. This legislation is before us because provincial jurisdictions have already acted on the issue, and now there is more of an obligation on the federal government to bring forward legislation.

I have always thought the current government has not been proactive in dealing with health and labour issues. The member may want to comment on the fact that the government is not necessarily providing leadership on this issue but is responding to provincial governments' actions to date. He may want to add some comments on that aspect.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. This legislation has been enacted in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, and a lot of the work that has been done on the implementation of this act has already been done in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador.

He is absolutely right that the government is not proactive when it comes to workers' health and safety or even workers' rights. We saw that in the Port Metro Vancouver strike. Last week the Prime Minister was saying that this is not a federal responsibility and the province was saying it is not a provincial responsibility. Meanwhile, one of the largest ports was shut down because of the government was unable to see a simmering dispute that had been growing for eight years and was not able to figure out whose responsibility it was. There were 60,000 jobs related to this facility. For over four weeks, one of the major ports was shut down because of a lack of proactive work on the part of the current government.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and speak on Bill C-5 at third reading stage.

I wish to announce from the outset that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Drummond.

Of course, being from the west coast, I was not as familiar with the industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, which has taken off in the last generation. I was very impressed, therefore, when the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour and the member for St. John's East spoke so passionately about the impact the offshore oil and gas industry in their jurisdictions and reminded Canadians from coast to coast to coast just how important that industry is to our national economy. About 35% of Canada's light crude oil is being generated by that industry, and it is expanding.

I had the opportunity, I confess for the first time, to be in St. John's several months ago and to see the enormous impact that industry has had in that jurisdiction, and in Nova Scotia as well, and to learn how proud the people of that jurisdiction are with respect to the contribution it has made to their economy. For that reason, it becomes even more important for us address the issue of worker safety in that industry.

I was shocked to learn that there has been no statutory safety regime in either jurisdiction for a generation. Essentially, the industry has been operating without any kind of legislated jurisdiction or legislated regime for the protection of worker health and safety for a generation, but has been relying instead upon merely draft regulations. As my friend for St. John's East pointed out very accurately, the only thing that could be done in the event of a problem was to shut the whole thing down, which, of course, is often something regulators would be loath to do.

However, in place of that, we now have a very comprehensive bill before Parliament, finally. It is a bill that was made in collaboration with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador so as to provide a consistent regime to deal with this burgeoning industry. I think it is for that reason alone that the official opposition is in entire accord with the need to move on with the proposed legislation.

When I say move on, I would point out that it has taken over a decade to get us to this place with legislation. I understand and respect that there has been collaboration to work closely with the provinces in this regard, perhaps something that has not been done by the government to any great degree. However, I think that the proof is in the pudding, and we now have a regime to which the Province of Nova Scotia has given royal assent, as did the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in May of last year.

We are getting on with it, they are getting on with it, and the workers want us to get on with it. I see all Canadians would certainly understand the need to enact a regime as comprehensive as the one before us.

I should say that enforcement is really what is critical here. A number of important principles in the legislation have been spoken to by members opposite as well as members from the official opposition, and there are three principles that I think we would all subscribe to.

First of all, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections that are at least as good as those for onshore workers. There can be no doubt that is only fair and appropriate.

Second, there is the protection of the employees' right to know, to participate, and to refuse unsafe work, and in doing so to be safe from reprisal. This second principle is one that in the last two or three decades has been made a significant part of labour law in this country, and it is about time that the offshore workers of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia enjoyed the same rights.

The third principle is the support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes shared responsibilities in the workplace. We can talk about laws and we can make laws, in this case with scores of pages, and then make many scores of regulations under the statute, but unless there is a culture of safety in the workplace, it really amounts to nothing.

As we examine a regime like this, the extent to which there is enforcement is also critical. It was Shakespeare who said, “...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. If this law is not implemented carefully, responsibly, and with that culture of health and safety that has been referred to, it really will be nothing more than paper, and no one wants it to be that way. No one wants it to be that way, when we look back in sadness on the Ocean Ranger disaster or the helicopter crash in 2009 that killed 17 people. We are dealing with the importance of a robust regulatory regime. That is what we are here to discuss.

At a broader level, this legislation is a great example of co-operative federalism at its best. The notion that we can sit down with the provinces, which have their own circle of jurisdiction, the federal government, which has its jurisdiction, and the offshore boards, federal and provincial, that have been created, and work together and produce something like this is one of the things that makes Canada such a great country. Our willingness to work together makes this a great country.

It is sad that it has taken this long. It does not appear to be a priority for the Conservative government. Given the delay, it does not appear to be the priority one would have expected, but nevertheless we are here and we are pleased to debate such an important piece of legislation.

I mentioned the three principles that I think are so essential to this legislation. I should salute the work of Mr. Justice Wells, who came up with a number of recommendations after the helicopter crash, which have been saluted by people on all sides of the House today. He worked hard. It is telling and it is sad, and we have heard this before in the debate today, that the recommendation he thought the most important is not part of this legislation.

Mr. Justice Wells states the following in his report, “I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire Report”. What is that recommendation? Recommendation no. 29 states that “...a new, independent, and stand-alone Safety Regulator be established to regulate safety in the C-NL offshore”.

If that were not considered feasible, Mr. Justice Wells gave an alternative that the government “...create a separate and autonomous Safety Division of C-NLOPB [the board], with a separate budget, separate leadership, and an organizational structure designed to deal only with safety matters”.

Mr. Justice Wells, the architect who brought this to the attention of the regulators so forcefully, said the most important thing is an independent, stand-alone regulator, and the Government of Canada sadly has refused to accept what he himself characterized as the most important recommendation in the entire report.

Obviously, we cannot be happy with this legislation entirely, notwithstanding that we finally have it, when such an important piece of the puzzle is missing, a piece of the puzzle that is found in so many of our sister jurisdictions with offshore oil and gas, the British with the North Sea, the Norwegians, Australia, and the United States now. Yet Canada does not think we need to go there.

If there is anything we understand from regulatory culture, it is the notion of regulatory capture. The need to have an independent board to do the job is something that most people, at least in other jurisdictions, seem to take for granted now. But for reasons that escape me, our government seems to think that is not adequate even though it had been sought by so many, the provinces, the workers, and the like. Sadly that is missing.

The bill could be much better but we will support it proudly because of the fact that the workers were involved. There were consultations. I just hope that going forward they will continue to be involved.

I wish there had been a way to have a five-year review, as sought at committee, because that has been done so effectively when other Conservative governments were around. The present Conservative government does not believe in that. Nevertheless, it is critical that we look at that in the future, as the bill will inevitably come forward for amendment. Maybe we could do it better. Maybe we could do what Mr. Justice Wells said we needed to do as the most important feature. Maybe we could do a better job of protecting those workers in those dangerous occupations off the shores of Atlantic Canada.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member opposite for his presentation today. In fact, he was doing really well until he got to the part about Justice Wells' recommendations.

I say that because we had Justice Wells before a committee on this bill. That question was asked of him in several different ways, about the fact that recommendation 29 was not included in the legislation.

He made it really clear that the protection he referred to in recommendation 29 was covered by this bill, and covered extremely well. He said, and this is a quote from the committee:

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.

That is his comment, and it was in response to a question about recommendation 29.

I would like to ask the member why he does not take Justice Wells' word for it, that in fact, the concerns he expressed in recommendation 29 have been covered in other ways?

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that Mr. Justice Wells did make those comments before the committee. I think I understand the context in which they were made.

Obviously it is critical that we get on with this. I think I said that as powerfully as I was able. I think Mr. Justice Wells recognized that, as well.

Having said that, he never drew back from the specifics of the quotes I read to the House of Commons just now. He did say that it was the most important feature of his bill. It is for that reason that the notion of not having a statutory five-year review seems even more difficult to fathom.

The Progressive Conservative government under Mr. Mulroney was of course a government that listened to committees and had unanimous reports when five-year reports came forward. To me, that is something this bill desperately needed, and yet the government, as it was not their idea, said no.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Victoria asked earlier today in this debate about the practice of having provisions in legislation that require it to be reviewed after a period of five years.

I am familiar with that at the provincial level. I was interested to hear his point that it is also the case at the federal level. I have had the opportunity to speak about it a bit in terms of the principle, but I wonder if he could elaborate further in terms of the practice as it relates to federal legislation.

[Murray Rankin, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the great inventions over the last few years was to use more and more statutory reviews.

I can give three examples of which I am aware. There is one in the Access to Information Act, one in the Privacy Act, and one in the Canadian Security Intelligence Act. Each one says that there shall be a review by a House committee within five or six years for that statute, to see whether the experience is in fact what was expected, given what was passed previously.

It seems sensible. It seems like such a good Canadian idea: to sit down and require Parliament to review it to see if there is anything that needs to be fixed.

Here we have a statute that is scores of pages long, with regulations that will be hundreds of pages in length. It seems ridiculous not to have the benefit of that in this legislation. I do not understand why it could not have been done. The member opposite says it was because of the provincial legislation that mirrored it, but that is not an excuse for the federal government within its jurisdiction deciding to review the legislation in a five-year period.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures. This bill has a very long title, but it is a very important bill and Canadians, particularly the NDP, have been waiting for it for over 13 years. We have been calling for the implementation of more health and safety standards for workers in the offshore oil and gas industry.

Before I begin speaking about the bill, I would like to point out the excellent work that my NDP colleagues have done in committee. They helped this bill move forward so that it could be examined today. Some of the members in question include the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who did excellent work; the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue; the member for Edmonton—Strathcona, who worked extremely hard not only on natural resource issues but also on environmental issues and who has a great deal of knowledge in this field; the member for Nickel Belt; the member for St. John's East, who gave an excellent speech today; and the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, who also examined this bill.

I mention this because Canadians do not really know about the work that is done in committee. I often talk to my constituents in Drummond about the importance of the remarkable work the NDP does in committee. We always hope that that work will be as objective as possible, that it will be not be partisan and that it will be for the good of all Canadians.

My constituents know that I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development since soon after I was elected in 2011. For three years, I have been trying to work with my colleagues in such as way as to provide as much benefit as possible to the people in the greater Drummond area and throughout Canada in order to improve bills and conduct studies that will improve the quality of the environment and sustainable development.

The Standing Committee on Natural Resources examined Bill C-5 to improve the health and safety of workers in the offshore oil and gas industry. It is important to understand the significance of the work that was done by my NDP colleagues. They proposed an amendment to improve the bill by including a provision that would require the department to conduct a review of the implementation of the act within five years of the legislation coming into force.

This interesting bill makes improvements, which I will talk about a little later, but it could be fine-tuned. For that reason it is important to have a review period. However, we do support the bill at this stage. Any important bill includes a review period.

For example, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act includes a review period. In fact, the review is supposed to be happening now. I do not know what the Conservatives are doing. They are asleep at the wheel and are forgetting to review certain laws. In any case, I am concerned about their reviews, when they actually do conduct them.

When they reviewed the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act they scrapped it altogether. We went from having thousands of environmental assessments to a few dozen. That has resulted in serious problems such as the approval of the Enbridge pipeline. Reversing the flow of the pipeline was done without a proper environmental assessment.

The same thing is happening with Bill C-5.This bill will not undergo a proper review because the Conservatives did not accept our amendment that the legislation be reviewed in five years.

Bill C-5 fixes long-standing problems with the legislation and also the authority to make regulations pertaining to occupational health and safety standards and their application to offshore oil and gas operations in the Atlantic.

The bill amends the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord in order to enshrine the workplace health and safety regime into the legislation. This is an important measure and the NDP will support it.

However, the bill does not respect recommendation 29 of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry. As hon. members know, there was a serious accident. Following that accident, the people of the region were very concerned. There was an inquiry led by the Hon. Robert Wells.

Bill C-5 does not include a provision to create an independent regulator. A number of my colleagues have mentioned that today. In fact, they have done excellent work. They have done a fine job of explaining the importance of the workers and showing concern for their health and safety, including the helicopter pilots and other members of the crew.

The bill does not have any provisions for creating an independent, stand-alone safety regulator or implementing separate safety divisions within petroleum company boards of directors.

It is truly disappointing because the NDP went to great lengths to ensure that the bill would be reviewed after five years. This could provide the opportunity to create an independent offshore authority. I am not sure what the Conservatives are afraid of, why they have this need to control everything and manage everything from their offices. This could be handed over to a stand-alone and independent regulator. That would help ensure better health and safety for our workers. We know that these people experience tough situations. They do dangerous work. They are very brave. These professionals do excellent work for their region and to take care of their families. However, we must ensure their health and safety.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not include a provision for a five-year review, which would have allowed for the implementation of a stand-alone and independent authority. That is too bad.

Although the Conservatives refuse to implement recommendation 29 of the Wells inquiry, Bill C-5 is still a constructive and much-needed improvement to the current occupational health and safety regime for offshore areas because it enshrines practices into law. That is good news.

The NDP is very proud to support Bill C-5 because we have been calling for improvements to this regime for years. This bill has been a long time coming. For more than 13 years, we have been calling for this bill to move forward and for it to be implemented. Unfortunately, it is long overdue.

I would also like to mention that the NDP finds it very troubling that this work is not being done in collaboration with provincial governments more often. It is very important that the federal government respect provincial governments and its provincial counterparts.

Unfortunately, when it comes to health, the federal government imposes new approaches without sitting down with provincial health ministers. That is wrong. At least in this case it signed an agreement with its provincial counterparts. That is a good thing, and something that should happen all the time.

As I can see that I do not have much time left, I will answer any questions.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating that both provinces have already given assent to their respective bills to enact these changes, and they are very patiently waiting for Bill C-5 to pass through our Parliament and for this regime to come into force.

The member has suggested that amendments were brought forward. I wonder if he understands that by bringing forward amendments of this nature, it would have actually meant a delay in bringing this bill forward, because we would have had to go back to the provinces, and it would have left our workers, yet again, without the extra safety measures that Bill C-5 proposes.

I wonder if the member would like to speak to that.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I am not an expert on this issue. I know some excellent members who are experts on the matter and who represent these regions: the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and the member for St. John's East. They advocate for their communities and are very familiar with what is needed to improve this bill.

These members have told me that this is a good amendment and that they have a good understanding with their provincial counterparts. I think that if federal government representatives sat down a little more often with their provincial counterparts, they would understand that it is easy to sign agreements if you take the time to negotiate with them.

That is what I would tell my hon. colleague. My colleagues who sat on the committee are experts on the matter. They worked very hard and know their provincial counterparts. I am sure that we could reach an agreement very quickly.

I am pleased to support Bill C-5 because it is necessary and we have been waiting for it for more than 13 years, as I mentioned.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize that offshore workers do work in very difficult situations. There is no doubt of that.

It is interesting that we had the government member from Saskatoon make reference to the fact that the federal government is now acting on this because of two provincial jurisdictions. One of the things we need to acknowledge is that, when it comes to occupational health and safety, the Conservative government has often been found lacking in terms of being proactive.

However, with regard to this legislation, as the Liberal critic has said, it is important. It is a step forward. It is something we do support. At the end of the day, we want to have good working environments for all workers, especially those in the offshore. When the provincial governments have led the way and are now asking for the federal legislation to pass, we want to do what we can and acknowledge that, yes, it has fallen short in certain areas, but it is important that we ultimately see the bill pass. It is something the workers deserve, and the provinces have been waiting patiently for it.

I wonder if the member wants to pick up on the fact that this, in fact, is being driven from a provincial agenda, as opposed to the national Conservative agenda here in Ottawa.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North, who explained the situation very clearly.

Earlier, the Conservative member mentioned that she was the one who had moved this bill along. On the contrary, the Conservatives have imposed decisions on a number of occasions, instead of sitting down to work with provincial colleagues and counterparts.

When the NDP is in power, we will make it a priority to sit down with our provincial colleagues and our first nations counterparts, so we can work together for Canadians.

A government cannot think that it knows absolutely everything, as the Conservatives unfortunately believe. On the contrary, we need to sit down with our colleagues and counterparts, such as the first nations and the provinces, to work and make progress on important issues.

As I mentioned earlier, health is a very worrisome example of the Conservatives' practice of imposing decisions instead of working with provincial colleagues.

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.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to rise and speak to 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.

Hearing long titles like this one, we are often left wondering what the bill is really about. This legislation is a culmination of a number of attempts to address safety for workers in offshore situations.

Most Canadians who work on land just take the right to refuse unsafe work for granted, but we should not, because workers fought for the right to refuse unsafe work for many years. We have the labour movement to thank for its advocacy in this area.

As we have learned more about occupational health and safety, we have learned that it is a shared responsibility, that employees have to be integrally involved in developing policies and practices, and that enforcement has to be there as well. We are pleased that this legislation would address those aspects and would give offshore workers the right to refuse unsafe work.

This legislation is a result of co-operation and collaboration between partners, and by that I mean the Atlantic provinces and the labour movement. Labour movements in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia worked closely together to make sure protective regimes would be put in place for offshore workers in the oil and gas industry. It is mind-boggling that such a regime did not exist already, because a worker is a worker. If workers are covered when their feet are planted on the ground, then why would workers in offshore situations not be covered?

We have had a number of tragic disasters, and those disasters have made us as a society and at different levels of government look at where our legislative framework is to protect those who go to work.

Offshore workers are like workers everywhere else. They get up in the morning, some in the evening, and they go to work to make a living. There is every expectation on the part of those workers and the families they leave at home that they will return home safely. Once this legislation is enacted, our offshore workers will have the right to refuse unsafe work, and I am pleased about that.

This legislation reminds me of Bill C-525, the legislation we were debating last night. I can see direct links between the two bills. In Bill C-525 we see a not-so-secretive attack on organized labour and on workers' ability to organize.

It has taken workers in the offshore industry many years to get rights that other people already have. Having been a teacher for most of my life, I know how hard it was to get an occupational health and safety framework implemented in the school system for teachers as well.

I am also reminded that there is often a disdain by my colleagues across the way for working people who have chosen to be part of a collective called a union. However, I am very proud of the achievements of the union movement.

Looking back to the 19th century, we can see the reason that unions were founded. It was to provide some balance because workers' lives were in danger. Hands were being caught in machinery, and amputated. Young children were being sent into the mines and terrible accidents were occurring. People were being forced to work incredibly long hours. It was at that time, out of desperation, that workers decided that singly they could not bring about change. If they wanted to bring about meaningful change, they had to hold hands and become a collective.

That kind of advocacy for the rights of workers, for a right to a decent living, for the right to work in safe workplaces and ensure the maximum safety, are all things that the union movement is still advocating for today. It is not just for the unions themselves, but for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I know you would want each and every worker in Canada to have occupational health and safety protection and the right to refuse unsafe work. If we do not have that, we are left in a very vulnerable position.

When we look at the legislation, the overall responsibility to carry out and implement a lot of it is put in the hands of the operator. Therefore, I was pleased to hear that the government had paid some attention, as I had hoped, to recommendation 29 of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador public inquiry into offshore helicopter safety, which was conducted by the Hon. Robert Wells.

This inquiry spent a lot of time listening to experts, and as much as I know that my colleagues across the way have an allergy to data, science, informed decisions, and listening to experts, I was quite impressed by the recommendation put forward by Hon. Wells. It brought home to me that we are once again passing a piece of legislation that is a step in the right direction and will enshrine the right to refuse unsafe work. However, at the same time, we are not writing legislation for yesterday. We should be writing legislation that is current for today, tomorrow, and the next few years.

The Hon. Robert Wells put forward what I would say are fairly reasonable options: the best case scenario and the one that would be acceptable if the best case scenario is not taken up by government.

In June 2010, the Hon. Robert Wells wrote:

I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire report.

Recommendation 29 demanded that a new independent and stand-alone safety regulator be established to regulate safety in the CNL offshore. That seems fairly clear. Then, Justice Wells, because he knows what parliamentarians can be like, wanted to give people a choice and not an ultimatum. It was not this or nothing.

He came up with a second option. The alternative option was that the government create a separate autonomous safety division of C-NLOPB, with a separate budget, separate leadership, and an organizational structure designed to deal only with safety matters. It was also to establish an advisory board composed of mature—that is often questionable—and experienced persons, who are fully representative of the community and unconnected with the oil industry. He also recommended ensuring that the safety division would have the mandate and ability to engage expert advisers, either on staff or as consultants, to assist it in its regulatory tasks.

The report further explains that the safety regulator should be separate and independent from all other components of offshore regulation and should stand alone, with safety being its only regulatory task. As I said, with a government that has an allergy to data, science, and informed decision-making, this legislation fails to meet either of those standards set out in that report. It is a report, by the way, that was not written overnight. It was well researched. As I said earlier, it is a shame that it was not included in the legislation.

We are supporting this piece of legislation because it is moving in the right direction. However, once again, I am going to make a plea to my colleagues across the way that they amend this legislation, even now, and maybe take the time so that it has some life beyond, rather than providing just the absolute minimum. I will say, though, that this is better than nothing.

We as the NDP are very committed to saying that when we form government we will continue to work with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Even before we form government, we are committed to further strengthening worker health and safety by working towards the creation of an independent, stand-alone safety regulator. That is the right thing to do.

I have talked about the government having an allergy to data and not listening to the experts. I live in the beautiful riding of Newton—North Delta. Unfortunately for us, in my riding we have had a very high number of homicides, and some have really touched members in my community.

Once again, when we look at the numbers and see how under-policed we are compared to ridings that surround us, in talking about facts and science it makes sense that we need that extra policing on our streets right now. I have a growing number of constituents who are becoming very disillusioned. They are asking how much more information, facts, and experience they have to share with the decision-makers for them to realize that we have a community that needs support and additional policing.

When we are talking about offshore on the east coast, it also brings home to me that we have this beautiful geography. We are a country that spans, not from coast to coast, but from coast to coast to coast. On the west coast we are just as concerned about our safety offshore as we are about worker safety on land. We are also very concerned about our environment and the impact of offshore exploration on the environment. We have to make sure that we have rigorous environmental protections in place.

Being a port city, Vancouver recently experienced a work stoppage for almost a month, which had quite an impact on the community. I had businessman after businessman coming to tell me about the impact.

I also met with the truckers, who were telling me about the impact on them with the terrific wait periods that existed. Compared to 2005, when they could do 5 runs, now they can do maybe two; if they were lucky, they could do three runs. They told me how their income level had gone down but their expenses had gone way up.

Just as it has taken the federal government so long to act on this piece of legislation, in a similar way we saw the federal government being remiss in not facilitating negotiations long before the strike started. Every party realized what the issues were, and it was the government that could have facilitated a much earlier resolution. It could have negotiated a settlement to ensure we did not have the economic impacts on both the business community, the transloading companies, and the drivers and their families.

Earlier today I heard about the wheat that is backlogged. In my riding, we ran out of storage space. Now I am very concerned for the transloading companies that move lentils, chickpeas, and all legumes, as well as all the wheat. They are going to be facing some extraordinary challenges in the near future.

I do want to congratulate the parties, the truckers, the transloading companies, and the Port, for the resolution to the strike that would never have taken place if the government had played an active role at the beginning. Whether it is about health and safety issues, other working conditions, or the ability to make a decent living and feed their families, workers have found there is power in working together and being part of a collective.

We pass bills that go into law, but unless there is enforcement, they remain words on paper. My plea to my colleagues across the way is to ensure that with the moves we have made in the right direction for worker safety in the offshore industry, especially with the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord, that we at least ensure we have implementation measures in place that are not just “we are asking you to”. For implementation to happen, there has to be real enforcement, and real enforcement has to have real consequences for those who do not ensure that the safety measures are in place.

Being a teacher, an important part of occupational health and safety is education. That is the education of workers. No occupational health and safety culture is complete without employers and workers receiving a thorough education and both of them working collaboratively. However, the power ultimately lies in the hands of the employer to ensure those conditions. All the worker has is the right to refuse unsafe work.

The enforcement and education are critical components of any successful occupational health and safety program. Having worked with a very successful one in B.C., I know that empowering the educational component can be successful.

I am certainly hoping that the operators who are being charged with these responsibilities will develop an educational program and also look at real enforcement.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to grain. In the Prairies, we are really sensitive these days on the issue of grain and the transportation of grain. In fact, I would have loved to have seen us debating Bill C-3 today. I know that my colleague, the Liberal Party critic for agriculture, wants to see that bill get to committee, where we can hear from farmers and other stakeholders.

The Liberal Party has long been very supportive of efforts that would ensure protective measures in occupational health and safety. We appreciate that this is something being driven more by our provinces than by Ottawa.

We recognize how important it is to have those offshore industries, which provide all sorts of economic opportunities and so much more in terms of wealth for all Canadians. There is a lot happening on the east coast. One does not have to be an eastern member of Parliament to have an appreciation for what is taking place there. I am very happy to see the prosperity.

Having said that, it is important to have labour laws and occupational health and safety measures enshrined. This is what this legislation is going to do. It has fallen short, to a certain degree, but it is a strong step forward. We give the government credit for that.

I wonder if the member might like to comment on what she believes would have given more strength to the legislation we are going to pass.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a teacher, I always rewarded good behaviour. I always believed in positive reinforcement. When we have had a bill that moved in the right direction, I have always stood in the House and said that it was good. However, if the bill does not quite hit the finish line, it is our responsibility to point that out as well.

I quoted from the panel earlier to say that an independent board was needed. Here is a quote from the former president of the Newfoundland Federation of Labour, now the president of Unifor:

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.

That captures it. It is that independence that is required.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member on her speech. She is someone who is familiar with the labour movement, as the former president of B.C. Teachers Federation. I wonder if she would comment on the fact that it has taken so long to get to the point where, after 13 years of discussion, we finally have this bill, and only now do workers offshore have the same rights as anyone else to refuse unsafe work and to participate in workplace committees and have an enforceable code for safety violations.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hard-working colleague for his question. I have always admired the work he has done in the House, and I hear glorious accolades for him from his constituents as well.

From my teaching perspective, I think 13 years to get to this point is really slow. However, we got here. If we were in continuous progress, we are at the halfway mark, but we still have a long way to go.

I actually was flabbergasted that we did not have this done a long time ago. Since I have been a parliamentarian, I have seen the government with a bill it wants to railroad through the House, as it did with Bill C-525, which was a union-busting bill, so to speak. It actually managed to ram that through with only about two and half hours of witness testimony and an hour of clause by clause. It then changed the orders so as to have it debated last night so it could be pushed through.

It is really about will. I am glad to see that the Conservatives have that will today to debate this, but it is long overdue. Even if it is long overdue, I am glad that it has reached this point.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, based on the last question and answer, I have a simple question. If the member allows the debate to collapse, we could go right to a vote and make sure that this gets through. That is all we need to have happen, and we can make it law.

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a question like that for a long time.

I actually believe in parliamentary democracy. I believe in debate, where we listen to each other and sometimes actually persuade others to change their minds on something. I believe in a process where the bill goes through all its legitimate stages, with the right to amend, discuss, debate, and hear testimony, unlike my colleagues across the way, who, yesterday, sat silent while they rammed through a bill that was an attack on working people. They sat silent for the whole debate. Not even the mover of the motion had the courtesy to stand to speak to the bill. That is not parliamentary democracy; that is something else.

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

Mr. Speaker, based on my colleague's speech, she clearly really cares about the people around her and about workers. Her last comments really struck home.

In her speech, the member talked about certain problems and about ways this bill could have been improved. For instance, she talked about an independent safety regulator. Certain things were suggested in committee, for instance, including a mandatory review of the legislation in five years. She even said that the witnesses supported such a measure. That is also Justice Wells' position.

Does my colleague see any downside to including a mandatory review in five years?

[Jinny Sims, NDP, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when a bill is before us that I feel is already lacking, that does not have independence and separation, I think five years is too long. I think this bill is in need of review even before it has been acclaimed. Because I fundamentally believe that and support what was recommended by the panel in the report, five years is too long to wait to review this piece of legislation.

As I said, in 13 years we have managed to get to about a C. In order to get an A grade, we need to make sure that there is independent regulation of offshore safety. Therefore, for me, five years is far too long.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.

As everyone knows, the NDP is very concerned about the health and safety of Canadians at work. Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction for offshore workers. Nevertheless, it has some flaws, and that is what I would like to talk about.

The debate on amending the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other Acts and to provide for certain other measures began in 1999, when an offshore worker died off the coast of Nova Scotia. Negotiations, however, did not get under way until 2001. The issue came up again in 2010 following the report by Justice Robert Wells.

On March 12, 2009, a helicopter crashed off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, killing 17 people. There was one sole survivor. After the accident, an inquiry was launched. It was carried out by Justice Wells. The judge himself stated that the most important part of the report was recommendation number 29, which recommended that:

a new, independent, and stand-alone Safety Regulator be established to regulate safety in the C-NL offshore.

This recommendation from Judge Wells illustrates the first obvious flaw in this bill, even though it has the support of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. This fact has been criticized by Tom Marshall, the Minister of Natural Resources for Newfoundland and Labrador. Judge Wells also proposed a three-point plan in case that recommendation was not adopted. He recommended that the government:

Create a separate and autonomous Safety Division of C-NLOPB, with a separate budget, separate leadership, and an organizational structure designed to deal only with safety matters;

Establish...an Advisory Board composed of mature and experienced persons fully representative of the community and who are unconnected with the oil industry;

Ensure that the Safety Division would have the mandate and ability to engage, either on staff or as consultants, expert advisors to assist it in its regulatory tasks.

I remind members that at the committee stage, the NDP proposed an amendment to Bill C-5 regarding the implementation of this recommendation. The amendment would have required the minister to table a report to Parliament within five years on the enforcement and implementation of the bill and on the need for a separate and autonomous offshore safety regulatory body.

The answer seems to be that the government's top priority is resolving this issue as quickly as possible, despite the fact that negotiations have been under way since 2001. Then, they will not have to worry about it anymore, even though revising this bill could only benefit Canada's offshore workers.

Second, let us talk about relations between the federal and provincial governments. The Conservative government does not co-operate with the provincial governments enough, despite the fact that they have to have the federal government's consent to change their safety regulations for offshore workers.

An NDP federal government would have worked closely with the provincial governments in order to protect the safety of these workers. It would have addressed this issue in 2001, when the negotiations between the federal government and the governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador began.

This is nothing but another blatant case of the Conservative government failing to listen to the provinces' demands. Let us not forget that these negotiations began in 2001 and that the bill still has not been passed.

What excuse do the Conservatives have for dragging their feet on this issue, which was on the table before they even came to power? How, in almost eight years, have the Conservatives not found enough time to resolve this issue?

I could ask the same question of our Liberal colleagues, who could have considered the issue as early as 1999. We cannot waste any more time. We need to pass this bill now, once we have finished with the necessary debate.

Shell and BP are preparing to explore for oil off the coast of Nova Scotia, and I am certain that no one here wants a repeat of the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon spill. On the contrary, I think that everyone here wants to know that offshore workers will be safe and healthy.

Third, I firmly believe that Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction when it comes to protecting workers. This bill will give workers the right to refuse tasks that they believe are unsafe. In addition, the bill will protect workers from reprisal if they report unsafe situations. In so doing, this bill further ensures the safety of offshore workers.

However, I want to reiterate that this bill would be an even better fit if it implemented Justice Wells' recommendation number 29 or if it would at least call for a review, in five years, of how the bill is being enforced to determine whether the creation of a new, independent and stand-alone organization to regulate safety issues in the offshore is warranted.

In closing, the NDP recognizes the merits of Bill C-5, which is a step in the right direction when it comes to better protecting workers. However, we deplore the fact that it has taken so long to get to this point. The NDP deplores the government's dismal co-operation with the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador and the fact that it is ignoring Justice Wells' recommendation 29 on the creation of an independent and stand-alone safety regulator for the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador offshore, which was the most important recommendation in his report.

Before becoming an MP, I took human resources management and occupational health and safety courses. These are critical issues. Safety is paramount when doing one's job and many studies show that we do a better job and we feel better if we feel safe. When we do not have that pressure, we feel happier about going to work and when we feel happy we do a better job. Therefore, it is essential.

A Conservative member asked why we were taking the time to discuss this and why we did not simply want to end debate and vote. The reason is that it is very important to have the opportunity to express our views about a bill in the House. The Conservatives often use time allocation motions to impose closure in order to quickly pass as many bills as possible.

As parliamentarians, our role in the House is to rise and debate these bills. This is a means of communicating with my constituents. I tell them about the speeches I give on various issues. Even if I am in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, which is in Montreal, Quebec, and far from where these issues are centred, these issues are of interest to Canadians across the country. This is about health and safety and it is important to take the time to discuss this issue.

We are nonetheless pleased to support this bill because it is an improvement, even though it does not go far enough.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech about a danger that she clearly takes personally. It is important to talk about this issue.

Why does she think it took 12 years to introduce this bill? Since this all started 12 years ago, the Liberal government of the day is just as responsible for it as today's Conservative government.

Can my colleague tell us why it took so long, considering that it involves important worker health and safety rights?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I do not know if I can answer it. I cannot read the Conservatives' minds, so I do not know why they did not act sooner. Maybe it is because they want to push their agenda through.

This is the 41st Parliament. We were elected three years ago, and since the beginning, the Conservatives have passed all of the bills that were in line with their values and on their agenda. I guess they wanted to get those things done first.

Since coming to power in 2006—not all Parliaments have lasted four years—maybe they decided to deal with their priorities first. That is a shame, because worker safety is very important.

The fact that it took 12 years is disgraceful. It is important for workers to feel comfortable and safe at work. The Conservatives are not the only ones to blame for the delay, because 12 years ago, the Liberals were in power. This is a sad situation.

The NDP is the party that can do the best job of protecting workers, their health and their safety. Those other two parties have just proven that this issue was not on their agenda or one of their priorities.

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

Mr. Speaker, this morning, during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, we were reviewing the transportation of dangerous goods by rail and the role of safety management systems. One witness from the steelworkers union said that Transport Canada was not doing its job and was not enforcing the rules. Rules are proposed, but Transport Canada is not enforcing them. It also gives companies permission to do all sorts of things and that is how we end up with situations like the one in Lac-Mégantic.

Does my colleague not think that having an independent body—an independent safety regulator—might help solve this type of problem?

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. She does excellent work on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

The committee’s study on dangerous goods is very important. I do not really know who said it, but it is true that Transport Canada does not enforce the regulations. We have seen this, with what happened.

I think this independent organization, whose mandate would be to ensure that the rules are enforced, is essential. With the Conservatives, it is always a question of self-management. For instance, the NDP asked that companies be required to tell us when a drug shortage might occur. However, the Conservatives said that they would not require them to do so. The result was another shortage of drugs. Here again is a case where the department is being asked to self-regulate. I do not think this is a good idea, and this is why we wanted to see an independent agency set up. This is also why we wanted there to be a reassessment in five years. We would then have been able to decide whether an independent agency was necessary or not. The regulations must be enforced. I am sure that people are doing what they can—I believe in the basic goodness of people—but sometimes things are forgotten, and there can be lapses or shortcomings. This is why independent agencies exist. They exist in order to monitor the situation. Their role is to make sure that everything is all right. It would have been a good idea to include an independent agency in the bill.

We are going to vote in favour of the bill, because it is a step in the right direction. Its content is good, but it does not go far enough. There are half measures in the bill. There may perhaps be repercussions, but we are going to support it anyway because it includes some helpful measures for employees, even though it does not go far enough.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Alfred-Pellan, Public Safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my opinion 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. The title is a bit long, but the purpose of this bill is to correct certain long-standing deficiencies in order to protect offshore workers who work specifically in the oil and gas field. This is a matter of health and safety.

The reason why I say this matter has dragged on and that these are long-standing deficiencies is that we have known about these problems for more than 12 years. They came to light more particularly following an accident. I lament the fact that this has taken so long. Why did the governments of the time, both Liberal and Conservative, wait so long to take action to protect the health and safety of workers? That is the least we can do.

On the other hand, I do want to acknowledge that this is indeed a step in the right direction, since such recognition is deserved.

This issue is of course somewhat complex in that there had to be a lot of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. Once again, I admit, the government has managed to speak and work with the provinces. I will come back to what could have been done better later, but I want to say that this is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, that is not the case often enough.

As an aside, in the case of the Champlain Bridge, a matter that concerns me directly, the government clearly does not want to co-operate with the provincial government or the municipalities. It has decided that if there are no tolls, there will be no bridge. However, when we talk to the provincial government and a number of municipalities, we see that they are opposed to the government’s plan. The NDP is also opposed to the government’s plan to charge a toll to replace the Champlain Bridge. Now I will get back to the subject at hand. I wanted to point out that sometimes the government can work with the provinces. It has managed to do so on this bill, and I do not understand why it does not do so all the time, why it insists on working behind closed doors and not co-operating to advance matters for the public good. In this case, this is a step in the right direction.

However, as my colleagues mentioned in committee, the NDP wanted to move amendments. One of the main points pertains to recommendation 29 of the Wells report. In fact, an inquiry was conducted following a rather tragic accident that caused a number of deaths off the coast of St. John’s. The report of the investigator, Mr. Wells, contains recommendations, one of the main ones being that an independent organization be made responsible for conducting follow-up. I am going to quote the report for greater clarity: “I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire Report.” Recommendation 29 calls for a new, independent and stand-alone organization to be established to regulate safety in the offshore. That recommendation is very important and was made following the inquiry. It really stated how important it was to establish such an organization.

The idea of creating a safety regulator is not a new one. We did not come up with it. We see it elsewhere. By comparison, for example, such independent, stand-alone organizations have already been established in Norway, the United Kingdom and Australia. Even the United States has a virtual equivalent called the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement.

A solution was recommended following a very important inquiry. We do not understand why the government refuses to go that route, why it is rejecting an amendment that might have been positive and practical and might have helped to improve health and safety.

The government often says that it will conduct studies and consider recommendations. However, it has been doing nothing for at least 20 years, even though the Transportation Safety Board says that DOT-111 tanker cars are unsafe and even dangerous. A Liberal government was in power 20 years ago. Today, we have the Conservative government and it is still doing nothing. It has no timeline to replace the old DOT-111 cars. That is what troubles me.

Bill C-5 comes in the wake of the helicopter crash in St. John’s, and the Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations were made in response to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, which caused 47 deaths. The Transportation Safety Board recently released a report stating that the problem with the DOT-111 tanker cars was linked to that tragedy. Despite that fact, the government is taking no action.

There is still a parallel with this case. It has taken 12 years to act. In the case of the DOT-111 tanker cars, it has been 20 years and the government still has not done anything.

Yesterday I asked the minister when he would have a timeline, and I got no answer. In fact, I got a vague, meaningless answer. There is still no timeline even though we know it can be done in a few years. However, the government has to be willing to take action. It has to show that this is what it wants. That takes a little trust and political leadership on the government’s part. That would be very much appreciated on this side of the House.

Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction. That is why we are supporting it at this stage. However, having been a member of several committees, I regret the fact that the government, which also has a majority in committee, rejects virtually all amendments whether they are moved by the official opposition or by the third party. It does not listen to the other parties.

That is unfortunate because the current situation is very real. The official opposition did not create it. This comes from an inquiry report. Experts have studied the problem. I am not an expert, but I trust the opinion of the people who went into the field and examined the situation. Those people made a recommendation to us, saying, moreover, that it was definitely the most important one, but the government set it aside. Why? That is hard to understand on this side of the House.

We want to establish an independent, stand-alone agency because we want to improve safety regulations. That is very important. I apologize for constantly drawing a parallel with Transport Canada because this relates directly to the file I am working on, but it reveals the same attitude on the government’s part. It receives recommendations, but it does nothing.

Once again, in committee today, we heard from experts who told us about the problems. Unfortunately, I can anticipate the government’s attitude. It will say that it has heard some good recommendations but that it is going to shelve them and do what it wants.

With regard to the railway safety example, I find that situation unacceptable. The Transportation Safety Board made three recommendations in its report on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, which caused 47 deaths. That report is not yet complete because the investigation is still under way. Unfortunately, the government is doing nothing to move this matter forward. That is deplorable because we are talking about saving lives, about helping people by improving health and safety. The government has turned a deaf ear despite the experts’ recommendations.

I am going to conclude by congratulating the government for doing something quite positive after procrastinating for 12 years. There has been some co-operation with the provincial government. However, the government can and should do better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know that I have had the opportunity to ask a number of questions related to the bill. The member intrigued me when he made reference to the DOT-111 railway cars and to the fact that we are talking about 20 years.

The question that I have for him is related to an area that he says he is quite knowledgeable about. When did the NDP recognize that the DOT-111 cars were not worthy enough to be on the rail line, and how long does he believe they should continue to be allowed to be used by rail line companies?

[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.

[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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It is a good answer, Mr. Speaker. I will say it again, as the hon. member may not have paid attention to my previous speech. Today is day one of the debate at report stage and third reading.

I really empathize with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, as we sometimes see major changes included in totally unrelated bills. For example, Bill C-4 made fundamental changes to labour legislation and justice. I would like the member to comment on this.

Bill C-4 also included two sections amending the Supreme Court Act, presumably to clarify the intent of the law. We all know the fate they met. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

Could he also comment on the change that would require the Transport minister to recommend occupational health and safety regulations? This is a 270-page bill filled with details and references to regulations, and we are well aware of the government's tendency to hide things. Could my colleague also share his thoughts on this?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Gatineau raises an excellent point.

Just because the government dragged its feet and introduced a bill way too late in the game does not mean we should not debate it with care and diligence. We must do things properly. The bill is almost 300 pages long. It is quite complex. We need to take the time to weed out its flaws and improve the bill. That is our job as parliamentarians.

I do understand, however, why our Conservative colleagues would not want to debate it; they are loath to debate anything. The Conservatives have now imposed 58 gag orders since 2011, and perhaps they are fantasizing about issuing one more. Who knows how many more gag orders we will have before the next elections.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I believe we have cleared 60.

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

It seems we are past 60, Mr. Speaker. Maybe we will reach 100. We, in the NDP, believe that it is useful to discuss, to analyze and to amend bills in order to improve them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his impassioned speech.

In his view, why is it that both the previous Liberal government and the current Conservative government have failed to focus on the right priorities, including workers, health and safety?

Both have focused on big business profits and on a wide variety of other things, including the deregulation that sadly led to the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Brome—Missisquoi for his question. Indeed, the previous and current governments are like two peas in a pod. For many years now, the Conservatives have been serving the interests of the same groups, who do not happen to be families and workers. However, the NDP is here to stand up for them.

The Conservatives would rather subsidize oil companies and give tax cuts to the banks, although banks made around 34 billion dollars in profits last year. Since the population of Canada is 34 million people, this means that every single one of them—every person, every citizen, every senior citizen, every baby—gives $1,000 a year to the Royal Bank of Canada, CIBC and Scotiabank. This is unacceptable.

An NDP government would definitely have other priorities. An NDP government would work for the people.

The House resumed consideration 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, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today even though I only have three minutes. I will try to be as concise as possible and speak clearly during the time I have today.

This bill is of interest to me and must surely interest all my colleagues, even though we have not heard many members from other parties speak to this issue today.

In all my discussions, the issue of protecting workers comes up often. This is an important issue for me and, I am sure, for the people of Sherbrooke as well. The protection of workers will always be a priority.

My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord talked about the reality of offshore workers. There are many difficult aspects to this work, because the conditions are unbelievably tough. They are not the kind of conditions we have on dry land. Conditions are extremely dangerous in offshore areas, which are located hundreds of kilometres from shore.

Simply getting to an oil platform is a difficult, perilous undertaking. Then, once you are on the platform, it is even more dangerous, not only because of the activities that go on there, but also because of weather conditions.

A bill like the one we are discussing here today is therefore crucial. Overall, it is rather positive, despite a few shortcomings. My colleagues have already talked about them.

This bill is extremely important. I must say, it is the result of excellent work that was done by various provinces. They managed to find some common ground in order to come up with this bill, although it was a long time coming. Indeed, the work began in 2001, and it was not until 2014 that it finally came to fruition. The process was extremely long. I understand that discussions with the provinces are not always easy and that reaching an agreement can be tough, especially when several provinces are involved. It took 13 years to finalize such a bill. That is a little much. I am happy to see that it is such a priority for the government—a priority in the sense that we are debating it here today.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

When the House resumes debate on this motion, the hon. member for Sherbrooke will have 17 minutes for questions and comments.

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from March 27 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.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my hon. colleague from Churchill.

As always, I am pleased to rise in the House today to talk about Bill C-5, which was introduced as Bill C-61 during the first session of the 41st Parliament, as members probably all know.

I would like to begin by saying that the NDP will support, at report stage, this bill to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act to enhance the safety and transparency of offshore petroleum activities.

These amendments would, primarily, create a new offshore workplace health and safety regime, which is a good thing. Bill C-5 addresses long-standing gaps in the legislation, as well as regulation-making authorities associated with workplace health and safety standards and how they apply to offshore petroleum extraction operations in the law. This is an important measure that the NDP has been seeking for some time.

Despite the federal government's refusal to implement recommendation no. 29 of the Wells Inquiry, Bill C-5 is a positive and necessary improvement to the current offshore health and safety regime because it places safety practices into legislation.

Bill C-5 is the culmination of over 12 years of negotiations, which started in 2001. In fact, I wonder what took the government so long to put these worker protection measures into law.

The bill also establishes a framework that clarifies the individual and shared roles of the federal government, the provincial governments, regulators, operators, employers, suppliers and employees. That is a lot of people, and I understand that the whole issue of the safety of our workers is rather complex and important, crucial even.

The bill is based on three basic principles.

First, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide offshore workers with protection at least as good as that of onshore workers. That seems pretty basic to me. A worker must be protected regardless of where he or she works, whether offshore or onshore. No matter what environment a person works in, the conditions should be standardized and safe. No one wants to lose a colleague, a parent, a sister, an uncle or an aunt in a workplace accident. It is always tragic. During question period today, my colleague mentioned that we have already lost six miners in northern Ontario. That is six too many. It is the responsibility of all governments, federal and provincial alike, to ensure that our workers are safe.

Second, it is important to protect workers' rights: the right to know, the right to participate, the right to refuse unsafe work and the right to be protected from reprisals if they should blow the whistle on unsafe working conditions.

Third, it is necessary to support an occupational health and safety culture that emphasizes shared responsibility in the workplace.

New Democrats in the provinces in question had long been calling for these changes to be enshrined in law, but the Conservative government seemed reluctant to follow through. Nevertheless, we are pleased that this bill was introduced in the House.

However, it is disappointing that the federal government prevented us from making workers even safer by creating a stand-alone safety regulator.

I would like to quote the Honourable Robert Wells, who in a 2010 inquiry report on offshore helicopter safety said:

After a full study of the Transportation Safety Board’s Report, I have concluded that not only should such an independent safety regulator be created, it should also be given a clear and unambiguous safety mandate. This need is more urgent in the light of the TSB Report.

Justice Wells recommended that, even in the event that the recommendation was not considered feasible, a separate and autonomous safety division be created within the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board.

Unfortunately, the government has no interest in creating a stand-alone safety regulator. I am not the only one saying so. When he was the natural resources minister in Newfoundland and Labrador, Tom Marshall said the same thing.

The NDP is determined to work in partnership with the provinces to achieve better results, something that seems very difficult for my Conservative colleagues to do.

Bill C-5 also authorizes the Minister of Natural Resources and the provincial employment ministers, in consultation with the Minister of Employment and Social Development and the Minister of Transport, to develop offshore health and safety regulations. In addition, the Minister of Transport would be required to develop health and safety regulations for offshore workers in transit, because the bill also applies to workers who are moving between offshore marine facilities or structures, and that is a good thing.

This bill is definitely a step in the right direction. It may not be a big enough step, but it is a step nonetheless. It would have been a bigger step had the Conservatives not refused to consider, for example, the entirely reasonable NDP amendment that would have included a mandatory review of the law in five years. This type of provision is found in a number of laws. It is quite acceptable to review a law every five years, because things change. In order to adapt to new conditions, the laws in force must be reviewed so that they can be strengthened and so that they are an appropriate response to needs. They have to be evaluated and amended, if necessary. We thought it was a very reasonable amendment.

The principle of this amendment was supported by a number of key witnesses and corresponds to the position taken by Justice Wells on this issue. We believe that our amendment is necessary, I will repeat, for due diligence and good governance, especially given the complex nature of the bill and the fact that it pertains to several levels of government.

Nevertheless, we will support the bill, which is a positive and necessary improvement to the current regime. Furthermore, it will protect offshore workers at least as well as onshore workers. That is a good thing, and that is why I am pleased to rise in the House to give this speech in support of the bill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are talking about a piece of legislation that pertains entirely to a specific part of the country. I am wondering if the member could speak to how the negotiations that took place and the benefits that will come from Bill C-5 may also be positive for the rest of the country and all Canadians.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that both provincial governments and the federal government have been involved. It takes a lot for the Conservative government to consult. It takes a lot for Conservatives to admit that they need to consult. In this case, fortunately, though it took some time, it was done, and it seems to have been done across sectors, with organizations.

The fundamental principle is important, and that is that no matter where a Canadian works, whether it be on the earth, in the air, on the sea, they should be given the same protections. There should be the same security standards offered to them so that we lose fewer workers in this country every year. We already lose too many.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to 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.

I am pleased to speak alongside my colleagues in the NDP in the House on this important bill, a bill that New Democrats support. We want to particularly recognize the hard work that was done by provinces in conjunction with the federal government to establish this bill. We want to note that despite the federal government's refusal to implement recommendation no. 29 of the Wells Inquiry, Bill C-5 makes a positive and necessary improvement to the current offshore health and safety regime by placing safety practices into legislation.

We as New Democrats are proud to support Bill C-5, as we have been calling for this strengthened regime for several years. We will continue to work with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to further strengthen worker health and safety by working toward the creation of an independent, stand-alone safety regulator.

As well, we in the NDP support the collaborative efforts between the provincial and federal governments that produced Bill C-5. We believe that collaboration with provincial and territorial governments to produce such measures moves our country forward. This is definitely something that, sadly, the Conservative government does not do enough of.

We know that the federal government, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador will be passing mirror legislation through their respective houses. The provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador have made a strong commitment to ensure the consistency of offshore regulation between the two jurisdictions.

Bill C-5 addresses long-standing gaps in legislation and regulation-making powers associated with occupational health and safety standards and their enforcement in Atlantic offshore oil development. The bill would amend the Atlantic accord to place the health and occupation safety regimes in legislation, which is extremely important. It is an important step forward that the NDP has called for in all relevant jurisdictions.

As I noted, however, the bill is not compliant with recommendation 29 of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Helicopter Safety Inquiry carried out by the Honourable Robert Wells. Bill C-5 does not provide for either an independent stand-alone safety regulator or an autonomous safety division within the petroleum boards. NDP efforts to provide for a review of the bill in five years, which could reopen the possibility of an independent offshore regulator, were unfortunately voted down by the Conservative government at the committee stage.

From our side, an NDP federal government would work with the provinces to put forward such measures in order to further strengthen the health and safety regime for Atlantic offshore workers. Nevertheless, we support this bill, as it is clear that it is well past due and is an important victory for the labour movement, for the former NDP government in Nova Scotia, and certainly for the NDP in Newfoundland and Labrador. They have been advocating for a legislated offshore safety regime for many years.

As I noted during my questions, it is clear that Bill C-5 is very much focused on the reality in the Atlantic, particularly in Newfoundland and Labrador as well as Nova Scotia, where offshore developments are an integral part of the economy.

However, as we know, in resource extractive industries it is workers who do the heavy lifting and put their lives and safety at risk day in, day out to produce the wealth of our country. As someone who represents northern Manitoba, a part of the country that depends in large part on resource extraction and on mining in particular, I am fully aware of the immense risks that people who go underground or work in smelters and refineries live with every day in the work they do. They do that work to provide for their families, contribute to their communities, and give Canadians the wealth and revenue that are so important in going forward.

It is particularly timely that we are talking about this, as it has been just 10 days since the National Day of Mourning, a very important day for all Canadians. It is a day when we take the time to mourn those who have died on the job, those who have been in workplace accidents, those who have been hurt and incapacitated in so many ways.

It is also a day when we take the time to strengthen our resolve to fight for the living, to make sure that we are talking about and acting on how we can make workplaces safer, how we can support health and safety regimes, and how we can ensure that unions have the support and the backing they need when pushing employers to step it up when it comes to health and safety.

It is very clear that we have a lot of work to do on this front. In fact, today my colleague, the member for Nickel Belt, made a very moving statement honouring the memory of two miners who were killed on the job in Sudbury. It reminded us that yes, in Canada and in 2014, people die because of health and safety failures in their workplaces.

Despite the calls for action and despite the work on the ground to prevent these kinds of senseless deaths, there is a lot of work to be done. Sadly, corporations have been negligent in too many cases in our country when it comes to looking out for health and safety.

The NDP's argument has always been to stand in solidarity with workers, no matter what sector they work in or what part of the country they live in. We stand by them and fight beside them for regulations and laws that would hold employers accountable and would ensure that health and safety is not negotiable or a matter of choice, but is mandated and regulated.

We are very supportive of Bill C-5 because it would mandate health and safety for offshore workers in a way that would prevent loss of life and further tragedies like the one in the Atlantic some years ago.

It is clear that there is more to be done. We can build on the successes of Bill C-5 by continuing to fight for an independent offshore regulator.

It is also important to review this legislation and see how it is implemented and how it will serve the best interests of workers.

We are disappointed by the unwillingness of the government in committee to provide for these amendments to the bill. However, we do want to acknowledge the many people in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia who worked very hard to make sure that tragedies like the ones that they and their families lived through are prevented.

We all have something to learn and to strive for in ensuring that workplaces across the country are safe and that no one loses their life doing something as important as going to work.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Churchill. I found her arguments to be well reasoned. On a side note, I would also like to commend her for the excellent work that she does in her riding.

We have learned from the Newfoundland New Democratic Party that it is calling for the C-NLOPD, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, to be parallel to some extent with the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, but there might be a certain conflict of interest in that not only do the boards regulate the exploitation of offshore petroleum but they also have important jurisdiction in ensuring the safety of workers and in protecting the environment as well. The Newfoundland NDP is calling for those powers to be separated so that there would be two institutions instead of just one.

I am wondering if my colleague would have any comments along that front.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who I know feels strongly about these issues as well, as he is in a region where resource extraction, and particularly offshore extraction, is a serious issue.

It is important that we hear the voices of those from Newfoundland and Labrador who are concerned about the conflict of interest that the companies are in and that we heed their calls for independent regulation and for clear safeguards when it comes to not only the health and safety of workers but also the environment.

We have seen too many cases in which companies claim to be self-regulating and are encouraged to be self-regulating, yet have track records that are not positive ones. Sadly, this is the pattern we see from the Conservative government. Independent regulation is critical, and it is certainly critical in making sure that workers are not at risk in their daily jobs.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her very interesting answer.

I would like to come back to the reasonable amendment proposed by the NDP involving an automatic review of the law every five years. This practice often comes up when bills are debated in the United States and then such provisions are included in the laws that are passed. However, this practice is not as often seen in Canada.

This practice should be used more often here, precisely because offshore oil and gas development is fairly recent in Canada. We do not have the expertise of other countries, and we have not really had a chance to look at what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, where all the problems occurred following the spill at the BP well whose name escapes me at the moment. We could learn a lot from that.

The United States regularly reviews its laws in order to make sure that they comply with the legal requirements regarding environmental protection. In Canada, we do this less frequently. The bill before us today proposes that we do so. Unfortunately the Conservatives rejected that proposal.

Does the hon. member have any other comments in that regard?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague.

We congratulated all the governments and entities that contributed to the development of Bill C-5. As the New Democrats have mentioned, we are disappointed that the government did not agree to our proposal to review the implementation of the bill every five years. As we know, the Conservative government does not proactively support facts or science. Unfortunately, we are seeing the same thing with this bill.

A review of the bill would ensure that workers are protected and that the bill is working. In five years, we could strengthen and improve the bill. Unfortunately, the Conservative government did not want to do that. However, the NDP will continue to call for such action.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brome—Missisquoi.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of Bill C-5 and to offer our party's support at report stage for the bill. Bill C-5 addresses long-standing gaps in legislation and regulation making powers associated with occupational health and safety standards and their enforcement, in this case particularly with respect to Atlantic offshore oil development.

The bill would amend the Atlantic accord to place the health and occupation safety regimes into legislation. We feel that this is an important step forward. The New Democratic Party has called for this in all relevant jurisdictions across our country.

It is important to point out, however, that the bill is not compliant with recommendation 29 of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador public inquiry into the offshore helicopter safety inquiry that was conducted by the Hon. Robert Wells. This followed in the aftermath of the tragedy so well known to Canadians. It involved the deaths of offshore oil workers on the Atlantic coast.

Bill C-5 also does not provide for either an independent stand-alone safety regulator or an autonomous safety division within the petroleum boards. New Democrat efforts to provide for a review of the bill in five years, which could reopen the possibility of these measures, including an independent offshore regulator which we believe is essential, were voted down by the government at committee stage, and that is regrettable.

A New Democrat federal government would work with the provinces to put forward such measures to further strengthen the health and safety regime for Atlantic offshore workers and, in fact, for all workers across the country from coast to coast to coast.

Nevertheless, we will support the bill at this stage as it is well past due and an important victory for workers and the labour movement that were instrumental in pushing this issue forward. Both provinces and both provincial New Democratic parties have also been advocating for legislative offshore safety regimes for many years.

By way of background, Bill C-5 is the culmination of over 12 years of negotiations, starting in 2001 between the federal government and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. The proposed amendments to the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act aim to strengthen offshore health and safety practices in the oil and gas industry.

Bill C-5 seeks to fill a legislative gap created by the 1992 amendments to the Atlantic accord that separated health and safety issues, resulting in the provincial offshore petroleum regulatory agencies effectively enforcing health and safety issues contained in draft regulations.

The bill would put existing practices into legislation by placing authority and fundamental principles of occupational health and safety within the accord acts themselves. We believe this is an important improvement to the offshore occupational health and safety regimes that the NDP has called for in all relevant jurisdictions.

The bill would also establish a framework that would clarify the individual and shared roles and responsibilities of the federal government, provincial governments, regulators, operators, employers, suppliers and employees, the co-operation of which we believe is fundamental to improving occupational health and safety in our country.

The bill is based on three basic principles: first, that offshore occupational health and safety laws much provide workers with protection at least as good as those which exist for onshore workers; second, the protection of employee rights, the right to know, the right to participate, the right to refuse unsafe work and the right to be protected from reprisals; and third, support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities of the workplace.

Essentially the bill engages the issue of occupational health and safety, the standards that should be applied to the enforcement mechanisms that are so important.

Before I was elected, I worked for a trade union for 16 years and saw the essential work that trade unions did across the country in representing and empowering workers and in advocating for stronger health and safety protection for workers in all occupations. As legislators, it is our duty to respond to that by ensuring that Canadian workers in every industry have the highest standards in the world and have meaningful, effective enforcement of those standards, because standards without enforcement are meaningless.

A few weeks ago, on April 28, workers across British Columbia and Canada marked Workers Memorial Day. This is a worldwide day, an international day of remembrance and action for workers killed, disabled, injured or made unwell by their work. This day highlights the preventable nature of many, in fact, most workplace accidents and ill health.

This day was started by the Canadian Union of Public Employees in 1984. In 1985, the Canadian Labour Congress declared an annual day of remembrance. In 1991, the House, because of New Democrat initiatives, passed an act respecting a national day of mourning for persons killed or injured on the job, making April 28 an official day of mourning across this country.

Speaking of the Canadian Labour Congress, it appears today that we have a new president of the CLC. I would like to personally congratulate Hassan Yousef on assuming the presidency of that organization. I wish him well and I know he will do a wonderful job in carrying on the fine work done by previous presidents, including President Ken Georgetti.

Tomorrow we will be honouring Afghanistan War veterans on this Hill and they, in many respects, are workers as well. They are people who, through their occupation, put their health, lives and wellness on the line for Canadians every day. They pay for their commitment sometimes with their injuries, illnesses and their lives, and it is not always physical. The psychological illnesses that are so well known through the trauma that our men and women in uniform are subjected to is something we will have a chance form coast to coast to honour tomorrow.

I would include our veterans, the heroes of our country, in the great pantheon of workers who ought to be covered and protected by this chamber, and every legislature across the country, to ensure that no workplace injury, illness or death is tolerable if we can prevent it.

There are a couple of people I would like to mention in British Columbia whose efforts over the years for occupational health and safety deserve mention in the House.

First, Jim Sinclair, president of the British Columbia Federation of Labour, has for decades championed the need for us to ensure that workers' health and safety on the job is protected.

Second, Tom Sigurdson, president of the British Columbia Building Trades, has also spent a lifetime both politically and in the labour movement to ensure that workers who get up in the morning and go to work have the right and expectation that at the end of their shifts they will come back to their homes and families.

This bill is symbolic of that as we seek to strengthen the health and protection of workers in the offshore oil industry.

Now, we do not have an offshore oil industry so much on the west coast, but we have a lot of workers off the coast of British Columbia. I hope the bill will serve as a template and reminder for all members of the House, including every member of Parliament from British Columbia, to ensure that we focus on the health and safety of those workers who go out on the Pacific Ocean and put their lives, health and safety at risk every day in order to feed their families and contribute to their communities and our economy.

We hear a lot about the needs of our economy and the need to ensure that we have a strong business climate. That is a particular priority of the government, which is laudable. However, we must also remember that no business and no economy runs without the labour and contributions of the workers who go to work every day and help to create the wealth, products and services that make those businesses profitable.

The New Democratic Party stands in contrast to the Conservatives because we believe that a balance between the interests of business and the interests of labour are not only an ethical and moral imperative, but the performance of our economy depends completely on achieving that right balance.

An economic approach that places the interests of business above and ignores the interests of workers is a policy that I believe will result in inefficient economic performance, and I think we are seeing that. Time and time again, I see examples where the government involves consultation of the business community. We saw that recently with the global market action plan when the Conservative government consulted over 400 stakeholders, not one of which represented a labour or work organization. It is this kind of lack of balance that is responsible for Canada's economy underperforming.

In 2015, Canadians will have an opportunity to select a different approach, an approach championed by the New Democratic Party which understands that a strong business sector, a strong labour sector and a strong government working together will create the most powerful and productive economy. That is what Canadians can look forward to in 2015.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I could not resist but to get up for two reasons.

I thank my friend and colleague for his remarks, particularly talking about the tragic Cougar helicopter crash. A good friend and former air force colleague of mine, Tim Lanouette, was on that aircraft, which had a catastrophic failure. We have to ensure that lessons are learned from such incidents, as they are through Transport Safety Board investigations. The health and safety of our workers is important. I am glad the NDP sees that is at the heart of this bill.

I do have to comment on my hon. friend's final remarks about the global market action plan. He listed how many witnesses have been heard, and how many groups have been engaged. Would it not be fair to say that employers themselves, and we have heard from literally dozens of employers about how we need to grow new markets, also have the interest of their workers at heart?

By growing their businesses and becoming productive, it allows them to hire more, secure those jobs and hopefully raise the standard of living and salaries. Would it not be fair to say that consulting employers also addresses some of these concerns?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first offer my condolences to my hon. colleague on his experience of having lost a friend in that helicopter tragedy. It reminds us that no one in the House is untouched by the issue of workplace health and safety. I think we all have a family member, friend, relative or a member of our community who has been injured, made unwell or even tragically killed.

In terms of the second part of my friend's question, business is an important voice. It ought to be consulted. It plays a pivotal role in our economy and in all parts of the business of the House, but so does labour.

This reflects the fundamental difference between the view of my hon. colleague of the workings of the House and ours. I do not believe business can speak for workers anymore than I think workers can speak for business.

If I turned that logic around, I could say that we do not need to consult any business, that we should just talk to 400 labour organizations, and that surely their interest in their employers and business would be sufficient to adequately reflect the interests of business.

I do not think that would be acceptable in the business community, and it ought not to be. Freezing out the voice of workers and labour in determining economic policies moving forward is equally misleading, misunderstood and misguided.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

In his speech he spoke about creating an independent stand-alone authority to handle offshore health and safety issues. Unfortunately the current government completely dismissed this recommendation.

Could my colleague tell us why this recommendation is so important to the NDP and how implementing such a recommendation could affect working conditions for our workers?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the importance of having independent adjudicators and officers that help to negotiate what are often fields that have different interests is vital. That is no more important than in the case of occupational health and safety, where workers need an impartial arbiter on the issues. They need a place they can go that is trusted, where they can bring their concerns. If we are being honest in the House, this is often not possible within the workplace itself.

The Hon. Robert Wells, in the 2010 offshore helicopter safety inquiry, said this:

I believe that the recommendation which follows this explanatory note will be the most important in this entire Report....

I believe that the Safety Regulator should be separate and independent from all other components of offshore regulation and should stand alone, with safety being its only regulatory task....

I believe the Safety Regulator should be powerful, independent, knowledgeable, and equipped with expert advice, hence my following recommendations...

It is recommended that a new, independent, and standalone Safety Regulator be established to regulate safety in the...offshore [industry].

Hon. Robert Wells said that was the most important recommendation of the report. The government has not followed that advice, and I urge it to do so.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

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

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

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

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

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

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

The hon. member for Burnaby—Douglas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your allowing me to continue my speech. I realize there is sensitivity on the other side of the House because of the Conservatives calling British Columbians radicals and trying to adjust legislation in any way that they can to force through their projects. However, disasters like the Ocean Ranger show us how important it is that we get these things right. I am afraid that the Conservatives have it wrong in terms of these pipelines.

Getting back to the companies, sometimes it is hard to see how these companies have the well-being of the public in mind. I will use another example from British Columbia.

In its submission to the National Energy Board, Kinder Morgan stated the following in its facilities application, volume 7, page 86, which I think gets right to the point:

Pipeline spills can have both positive and negative effects on local and regional economies, both in the short and long term. Spill response and clean-up creates business and employment opportunities for affected communities, regions, and clean-up service providers. This demand for services and personnel can also directly or indirectly affect businesses or resource-dependant livelihoods. The net overall effect—

Again, this is a company that is talking about a positive effect when there is a spill.

—depends on the size and the extent of the spill, the associated demand for clean-up services and personnel, the capacity of local and regional businesses to meet this demand, and the willingness of local businesses and residents to pursue response opportunities....

It is unbelievable that we have an oil company putting forward a proposal for a new pipeline that goes on in its application to stress, to emphasize, that if there were a spill, a catastrophe, that it would be of net benefit to the local community. That is why we need strict regulation and strict oversight, and why we should not be rushing through with these projects just because a company sees an advantage if we have a disaster.

This outrageous statement by Kinder Morgan in its application has made it around the world and has made Canada a laughing stock. For example, this comment has made it to the Rachel Maddow Show, shown on MSNBC.

In defending the statement, Kinder Morgan stated that it is required by law to include such statements in its applications to the National Energy Board. It is saying that spills are regrettable, but when they happen, they are of positive benefit to the community, which is ridiculous. Then it is trying to backtrack and say that it is required by law by the NEB.

However, a spokesperson for the National Energy Board said that the company is misleading the public, and the National Energy Board instruction, “...does not say that we expect to see an assessment of the positive benefits of a potential spill. In this case (Kinder Morgan) has chosen to indicate that there will be economic benefits...of a spill or malfunction”.

This is a very bizarre way to look at these projects. It is important to pass the legislation that we are passing here today because it keeps these companies in line and makes sure that public safety is at the forefront.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of what can be done when the government properly consults and works with the provinces. Could the member speak to this issue and perhaps mention how the NDP would approach legislation such as this going forward?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and all the great work he does in the House.

As just one example of how the Conservatives are changing regulations in a negative way in this country, National Energy Board applications for expansions of facilities used to take two or three years. There was proper consultation with the public. They have changed that legislation to force the National Energy Board to squeeze all applications down to 15 months, and the National Energy Board, because of this, is no longer allowing oral hearings for these applications. People will no longer have a proper say on the expansion of any kind of facility in Canada, whether it be a pipeline or other oil processing facility, which is the wrong way to go.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was not merely being facetious on the point of order earlier. I find it bordering on outrageous that a bill like Bill C-3 is called the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act. It is a deliberate attempt to mislead Canadians into thinking that this is an environmental law. The major environmental legislation of this country, and I speak as someone who practised environmental law, has been eliminated.

The “skies” part of this legislation deals with some administrative matters related to the investigation of air crashes. The “seas” part of this legislation deals with international treaties Canada has signed onto for some time for liability in the event of oil spills. Nothing about either is safeguarding anything.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he would comment on what a proper safeguarding our seas and skies act might contain.

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government was doing the correct thing, it would allow Canadians a proper say not just on expanding or building facilities but on a whole review of how it deals with the expanding oil and gas sectors in this country. The public, in general, is shut out, and of course, the government has to have meaningful consultations with first nations, which it is totally disregarding. In fact, this is causing all kinds of strife within British Columbia. It is very alarming, and in the long run, will not serve the country well.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have gotten used to the idea that our friends opposite want to deregulate everything, including the matter at hand. I would like to know why the Liberals did nothing to protect health and safety and the environment at offshore sites.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises a good point, and I thank him for all the great work he does in the House.

We have seen examples on both sides, whether the Conservatives are in government or the Liberals are in government, where they are willing to let businesses run wild and only act after there is some kind of tragedy. That is the wrong way to go. The way to get around this, of course, is to have proper reviews of legislation. If they are expanding a particular sector, they have to make sure it is done safely. Past governments have failed to do that, and that is why we need an NDP government, because it would do it right.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and pleasure to rise to debate Bill C-5.

I wish to thank my hon. colleague from St. John's East and my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour for the tremendous work they have done in raising the issues with respect to this legislation and bringing the debate forward to the House of Commons.

As someone from the east coast, I am all too familiar with tragedy on our coastline, from ship disasters to the Ocean Ranger disaster off the coast of Newfoundland to the one a few years ago involving a helicopter crash just shy of St. John's where 17 people lost their lives.

This legislation attempts to ensure the safety and protection of not just the natural environment of the east coast but also the workers who work there. If it were done properly in collaboration with the provinces, businesses would get on board and it would be profitable for them.

Allow me to play a little dress-up now and read to the Conservative Party what the bill proposes to do.

Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador agreed to join law reform negotiations in 2001 following the fatality off the shore of Nova Scotia in 1999. The provinces cannot enact the new law without federal agreement to make the same changes. Bill C-5 would provide regulatory boards with the operating authority to disclose relevant occupational and safety information to the public.

The bill would allocate overall responsibility for occupational health and safety to the operator. The employer would play an implementation and coordination role in this regard. Employees are to take all reasonable measures to comply with occupational health and safety measures. This one is a surprise and I do not know why the Conservatives would be against it. Bill C-5 would provide employees with the right to refuse to perform an activity that they have reasonable cause to believe is unsafe. The bill would afford employees protection from reprisals for reporting unsafe conditions.

Bill C-5 is timely legislation as Nova Scotians will see explorations off their coast by Shell and BP for the first time since the 2010 BP oil spill off the Gulf Coast.

Let me make a little sidebar comment.

On April 28, Canada's flags were lowered to half mast to pay homage to all of the people who went to work last year and died. Over 1,000 Canadians went to work and did not go home. Everybody in the House was mournful and very aware of the fact that workplace safety must be paramount in everyone's daily lives. We as members of Parliament and people we work with here are provided with security and the assurance that the House of Commons is safe and has good working conditions. If we notice something unsafe, we have the right to say something and have it corrected.

Why would the Conservatives oppose something that would enhance and protect workplace safety after standing so quietly and mourning the 1,000 Canadians who died in the workplace? We simply do not understand. Hopefully one day one of those Conservative members will explain to the House and to the working people of Canada and their families why they refused a clause of that nature.

Despite the federal government's refusal to implement recommendation 29 of the Wells inquiry, Bill C-5 is a positive and necessary improvement to the current offshore health and safety regime by placing safety practices in legislation.

New Democrats are proud to support Bill C-5. For several years now we have been calling for the regime to be strengthened.

New Democrats will continue to work with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador to further strengthen worker health and safety by working toward the creation of an independent, stand-alone safety regulator. The NDP also supports the collaborative efforts of the provincial and federal governments that produced Bill C-5. Unfortunately, the Conservative government does not collaborate often enough with the provincial and territorial governments to produce measures that would move our country forward.

We encourage the Conservatives to get into the game on this one and understand the importance of this legislation. We urge them to work with the provinces to get this done.

We would all like to see employment and growth in all sectors, including offshore or terrestrial areas.

We must do this with the highest standards of workplace safety and with the highest standards of environmental regulations.

I could not help but notice recently that the categorization of a certain whale off the west coast was changed. Why? It seems so timely before the possible approval of a pipeline in that area.

Why would someone change the classification of an endangered species? It could only be to make it more feasible or easier for an application to be processed.

I know these companies. They are not evil. They obviously want to make profits, grow their industry, and create jobs, and that is good, but at the same time, I am sure that a lot of these companies would like to have the highest of environment standards as well.

All that Canadians and those good folks in my former province of British Columbia are asking for is input. They want to be at the table. They want to have their voices heard honestly and fairly. They do not like to go to meetings to find a decision has already been made and they are just there for show, or in my case eye candy, but we will talk about that later.

The reality is that we cannot ignore the wishes and desires of the Canadian people. They are the ones who put us here. It is our job, and the regulator's job, to have proper and fair consultation and input with these folks before these major projects go on.

At the end of the day, I am not an expert on pilot whales, nor would I ever say I was, but I am very concerned about the environment. A lot of my friends work in the oil patch sector, and they are also concerned. They love what they do, and they make very good money at what they do. They leave their families for long, extended periods of time to work in the oil fields and then they come back. They also have children, and they are also concerned about the natural environment.

They are also concerned when a helicopter coming back from a rig crashes into the water. We found out that one of the aspects of the helicopter was that it did not have a 30-minute run-dry capacity. Recommendations came forward, but we still have not seen compliance on those yet. In fact, we may be purchasing helicopters for our military that may not have that capability.

I do not know why we would do this. We already had a tragedy, and in a small province like Newfoundland and Labrador, a tragedy of that nature affects everyone, and it affects all Canadians. These things do happen, but we can learn from those mistakes and make sure they do not happen again.

Government and the opposition should be working together to ensure the highest standards of safety and that protocols are in place to make sure that never happens again.

If it does happen again, who is ultimately responsible? Is it the company, is it the regulator, or is it the governments? It is probably all three, but explain that to a grieving widow or grieving children who have lost a loved one. Those are conversations we do not want to have.

If we can do it in advance, if we can move the safety issue forward in collaboration with the provinces and then again with industry, then we can exploit the resources we have on both coasts in a proper and environmentally friendly manner so that traditional fishing grounds, for example, can still be exploited, as well as other opportunities for future growth in our economy.

We cannot do that if we risk the environmental aspect of our terrestrial and aquatic systems. We simply cannot do that. We share the planet with the others.

In this I pay tribute to the late Farley Mowat, a great veteran, a great Canadian, and a great novelist who passed away today. He always said to all the politicians that we have to understand that although we are the human race, we share this planet with others. Those others do not have a voice, and those others—the whales, the birds, the fish, the trees, the plants—also share this planet with us as well. We need to ensure that just as importantly as we address workplace health and safety, we address these environmental issues properly.

We encourage the Conservatives to please get on board with Bill C-5 and pass it unanimously.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his speech, his compassion, and his commitment to the issue and to offshore workers. He managed to get a tremendous number of issues into one speech. I commend him for that as well, because it is a complicated matter.

I want to emphasize that the reason we are supporting this bill, despite the fact that it has some shortcomings, is that draft regulations governing offshore safety were in place for almost 20 years. Finally, after 10 years of negotiations and discussion, the bill came forward as a result of the hard work by the members of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, and the two governments in co-operating on this bill. It is very important that it be passed with some urgency.

However, we did want to use the opportunity to talk about some of the shortcomings. One of them is the fact that it does not include the most important recommendation from the Honourable Robert Wells, which was to have a stand-alone safety regulator. He said this regulator should be powerful, independent, knowledgeable, and equipped with expert advice.

Can the member comment on the failure of the government to accept that a stand-alone regulator should be put in place?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for that important question, but it tends to be the typical Conservative response. The Conservatives do not like the idea of “completely independent from government”. They will argue that it is an arm's-length agency, but they still want it to be within reach of them so that they control not only the budget but the messaging from that.

It is critical, from the Wells report and what my hon. colleague said, that we have an independent stand-alone person in this particular regard who is well financed and well equipped. Governments change all the time, but the fact is we want to ensure that this person has the tools to bring out the shortcomings to make everybody aware of what may happen and also make continued recommendations independent of the political world, to ensure the health and safety of all the people in this particular industry.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend this member for the wise words he has uttered in this place. He has served this Parliament for 17 years, and so he has an amassed wisdom of knowledge and also compassion. I have to underline his compassion. He talks to people in his riding constantly. He talks to them here. He is in constant contact with them and he has compassion for these people. When he talks about feeling the grief of someone who has lost a loved one, he knows what he is talking about because he spends time with them, looks at them eye to eye, and he is honest and compassionate in his approach.

The current government could learn quite a bit from this member, who is also the parliamentarian of the year, in terms of talking to Canadians and talking to the provinces. We know the record of the current government. Whether it be the inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women or the federal-provincial health accord, the Canadian health transfer, employment insurance reform, temporary foreign workers, Canada job grant, OAS, search and rescue, infrastructure, or police officer recruitment fund, we know that the Conservatives do not collaborate with the provinces and they do not talk to them face to face.

Can this member elaborate on how an NDP government would approach collaborating with the provinces?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, what a brilliant dissertation from my hon. colleague, a member of Parliament who will be here for many elections, I am sure.

It is very telling that the Prime Minister has never, in his eight years as Prime Minister, had a meeting with all the premiers at the same time. We have to ask ourselves why. However, I can assure members that the hon. leader of the NDP, I can almost guarantee, will have those meetings, not just on a group level but on individual levels to move this country in a forward and positive direction. That is what they are going to get when we form government in 2015.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He is well informed and works hard in his riding. I think we can all learn from his work ethic.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-5. Oil and gas production is a hot topic in eastern Canada and eastern Quebec. People are increasingly aware that oil will be routed through eastern Canada and more oil deposits are going to be developed. The legislative framework needs to provide environmental protection and keep workers safe. We are not there yet.

This bill is a step in the right direction. That is why I am pleased to say that I will be supporting it at third reading. However, it does contain some significant flaws. I hope that over the coming years, months and even weeks, we will be able to resolve the problems that we are already anticipating.

I would like to point out several of those problems. We know that in eastern Quebec, the Gulf of St. Lawrence is a closed environment that is unlike any other. There is mirror legislation in Quebec, negotiated by the federal government and the Quebec government, that we need to pass so that Quebec will have its own offshore petroleum board. Quebec is still without a board because no decision has been made about the precise location of the border between Quebec and Newfoundland. It is a side issue, but I hope it will be resolved soon.

People in Quebec are closely following the agreements between the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board and the Nova Scotia board. The two provincial governments, as well as the federal government, will work diligently and give us ideas and solutions we can work with.

However, we have our doubts. The Gulf of St. Lawrence is shared by five provinces, half of Canadian provinces. It is always difficult to develop a legislative framework that five provinces can agree on.

We have seen that. My colleague raised that point recently in a question about the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada never meets with his provincial counterparts. In reality, he might be scared to meet with them about this legislative framework for the environment and worker safety in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Five provinces is not insignificant. However, this must be done. We must ensure that the gulf is protected.

Over the past 30 years, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has done impressive work. However, we know that there are many shortcomings that the board must now address. The board has just released its strategic environmental assessment for the coming years. In its environmental strategy, this board also acknowledges these shortcomings where oil development in eastern Canada is concerned.

In his fall 2012 report, which was not released until spring 2013, the environment commissioner noted that there are insufficient oil spill response tools. Unfortunately, this was not addressed in the bill before us.

I want to come back to what these shortcomings raised by the environment commissioner mean. It is important that the people in my riding understand. For example, at paragraph 1.83 of his 2012 report, he says:

The Canadian Coast Guard has equipment for responding to oil spills from ships...the Coast Guard does not have a mandate to respond to spills from such facilities and so does not have the resources or equipment that might be needed to deal with a major spill. The Coast Guard does maintain a stockpile of dispersant, but, as noted earlier, current rules do not allow the use of this substance in Canadian waters.

We should think about this. According to the environment commissioner, the Coast Guard is not equipped to deal with spills, and what is more, use of dispersant is not even allowed in Canada. That is a rather major problem.

Something not mentioned in this report that I would like to point out is that the Gulf of St. Lawrence freezes in the winter. It is all ice. If there was a spill in the winter, we would be in a really difficult position and we would have a lot of trouble cleaning it up. We doubt the Coast Guard could clean up a spill in the wintertime.

Projects are going to be getting under way soon. There will be pipelines across Canada. There will be a pipeline all the way to Saint John, New Brunswick. There could be a terminal in Cacouna, Quebec. There is also a project coming to Belledune, where millions of barrels of oil will be shipped by rail every week. Right now, all of this is a concern for people in eastern Canada. What will happen if there is a spill?

Projects are moving forward quickly. When the environment commissioner tells us that there are shortcomings that have not been addressed, we need to think about whether the bill before us goes far enough to really allay the concerns of people in my region. Unfortunately, I do not think that most people in my region will be satisfied with Bill C-5 as it stands today. However, I think they will agree that it is a step in the right direction, at least in terms of worker safety.

I would like to come back to the issue of workers. The NDP finds it very hard to accept that the government prevented us from protecting workers even better through the creation of a stand-alone safety regulator. That was not done. In the bill today, we wanted to see safety measures that are independent of government. Hon. members will recall that half of the members of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, as well as the Nova Scotia board, are appointed by the federal government. This organization is very close to the federal government. It is not independent. We would like to see more independence, but unfortunately, that is not happening.

The NDP in Newfoundland and Labrador clearly said that it would like to see the powers of the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board divided. It would like to see a separation of powers. The party has been calling for this for years and, unfortunately, the bill before us does not take this request into account.

The government would be well advised to negotiate better and take more time with its provincial partners to ensure that the legislative framework they negotiate is adequate. The government is unfortunately not taking the time to do that.

During the debates in committee here in Ottawa, the NDP proposed that this legislative framework be reviewed in five years. The United States tends to do that a lot, but it does not happen often enough in Canada. After a given amount of time, parliamentarians would automatically be required to make sure that the legislation is still adequate.

A number of witnesses in committee brought up the many flaws in the bill, so it would make even more sense to regularly review the legislation. We are talking about economic growth, and this would also help ensure that the offshore environment in eastern Canada is protected for future generations. I do not think that the legislative framework in front of us today goes far enough.

Once again, I want to point out that this bill is a step in the right direction. It is an important step, but it should be more extensive and exhaustive. Witnesses told us what we need to do, and we should listen to them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the same question. As I said, the bill is great because it improves working conditions for workers in the oil sector.

I would like to thank the government for recognizing the importance of occupational health and safety. However, as I said, the oil needs to be transported, put on trains and shipped across Canada so that people can use it.

What is the government's logic? For the first time since that major BP spill, there will be new drilling and exploration to increase Canada's oil extraction capabilities. Why not deal with our railways? Why put people in danger by transporting dangerous goods by rail? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

Many people share that concern. Rail safety is another element, but one that is central to the bill before us. Oil will also be transported by sea and by rail. We know that the tremendous increase in the transportation of oil by rail in recent years has caused great concern, not to mention the Lac-Mégantic problem. There has been quite a significant increase in both western and eastern Canada. We definitely need a much more comprehensive regulatory regime for rail safety.

However, if we go back to the mandate of the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore petroleum boards, and also the soon to be established Quebec board, what we see is that oil will be transported by rail until it can eventually be transported by sea. The two are connected. We want a legislative framework that will protect people, the environment, the fisheries and future generations. We are not there yet. The government must adopt a legislative framework that is much more comprehensive than this one. Once again, we are headed in the right direction, but we have a long way to go.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one major surprise about the bill is that the government consulted the provinces. We know that the modus operandi of the Prime Minister and his entourage is not to consult the provinces, whether we are talking about the inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women, the federal-provincial agreement on health care, the Canada health transfer, employment insurance reform, temporary foreign workers, the Canada job grant, old age security, and the list goes on.

Can my colleague describe the difference between the NDP and Conservative approaches when it comes to relations with the provinces and Canadians in general?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin with relations with the provinces. As far as relations with Canadians are concerned, I will leave it up to them to use their vote in 2015 to express how they feel about the job the government has done over the past few years. I think that the Conservatives will not be happy with the result.

As we know, the Prime Minister of Canada does not meet with his provincial counterparts. This is a serious problem. The partnership that makes Canada a confederation seems to escape the government. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is that the provinces are always fighting with the federal government. That is no way to govern a country. All it does is create discord.

In the bill, we want to see a legislative framework that reflects a partnership. For example, I would like the government to look closely at the strategic study by the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, which was released two days ago, and the study by Genivar in Quebec, released a few months ago. Their recommendations are quite interesting. Perhaps the government could learn a thing or two.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the recorded division be deferred until the end of the time provided for government orders on Monday next.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member has asked that the vote be deferred until Monday at the end of government order. It is so ordered.

The hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations, and I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from May 8 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 Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-5.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #137

[The Deputy Speaker, Joe Comartin]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)