Bill S-3 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act

This enactment amends the Offshore Health and Safety Act to postpone the repeal of its transitional regulations.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate this afternoon, and I am very concerned. We are ramming through something that is very important to the workers who work in this industry.

One of the questions I have for the member is this. Did the committee do any pre-studies? Did it have any pre-warning? Was there some work done a year ago or two years before to set the stage so we could actually feel confident that we had done the proper due diligence as parliamentarians to move this bill through, which we are being told has to be done today?

I am curious about what the committee did beforehand and what the Liberal members of the committee suggested it do to allow the committee to do the full function it was there to do.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did join the natural resources committee earlier this year.

We knew the legislation was coming in December, but we did not have an idea of exactly when it would come. I am not aware of any pre-studies that were conducted. I know the minister stated that there was a lot of work being done in the back room on this.

However, given the importance of this legislation, I would reiterate from my speech that it is very disappointing it took the government so long to bring this important legislation to the House. It really did not give an opportunity for members of Parliament to deeply study this issue, which forced us to really work hard to expedite this legislation so we could get it passed and bring forward these key protections.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is a Senate bill, not a government bill. It did not come through the Order Paper or through the government.

What are the member's thoughts about how this speaks to the priorities of the government and why it had to come through the other place first, that it was not one of the first items on the government's agenda, knowing there was a deadline to get this done?

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to serve with that member on the natural resources committee where we both worked hard to ensure this legislation would pass in an expedited manner.

I cannot speak to the negotiations that the government had or the reasons it had for trying to move this through the Senate. However, I will commend the work of our senators, particularly one of the Conservative senators who called for a common-sense amendment to lower the timeline from 24 months down to 12 months. This shows that there are a lot of positive things the other place can do.

I know in the House, the Conservatives are going to work as hard as we can to ensure the legislation gets through today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to say I am happy to be able to speak today to Bill S-3 at third reading, which would extend the transitional offshore occupational health and safety regulations for one more year to allow the finalization of the permanent regulations.

That is to say I am happy to speak to it, because I hope it will pass today. We certainly want to see it pass today because we have been waiting a very long time to see the governments, both federal and provincial, come up with permanent occupational health and safety regulations in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore. We have been waiting for this since the early nineties. There is a long and sad history of an attitude toward offshore health and safety, which does not in any way compare to the kind of health and safety regulations that have been available to onshore workers in this country for many years.

We have heard all sorts of excuses about the delay. We have to pass this legislation, and I am happy to pass this legislation, but I would have been very happy if we did not need this legislation. In fact, we would not have needed this legislation if the government had been more diligent in pursuing the object of the legislation that was passed in 2014, which itself was very late.

The minister talks about the delay and all the complications and consultations that have to take place. He lamented on several occasions that there were 300 pages of regulations. I wonder what page they are on. I really do. They have been working on 300 pages of regulations since 2014. That is six years at 50 pages a year. What page are they on now?

I do not mean to be flippant about it, but I think to use that excuse entirely misses the point that there does not seem to have been a serious effort to actually put in place permanent regulations. They are very necessary, and there is a reason for it.

I am afraid the reason is that the companies thought the regulations were too burdensome. That debate has been going on since the early 1990s, when occupational health and safety was taken away from the federal labour department and the provincial labour department and given to the C-NLOPB. It has already been pointed out that they have divided obligations to ensure they are looking after offshore health and safety, environmental protection, production schedules, and the promotion and development of the industry.

As has been pointed out by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and others, there is an inherent conflict there and, at the very least, a lack of focus on the important things. There are good examples of why that is a problem, and I will come to a specific one that illustrates that problem and also the problem of the lapse in the regulations. This lapse has been allowed to happen by the failure of the government to bring in this legislation before the regulations expired, which they did on December 31 of last year.

We have no enforceable regulations now in the offshore. They have been given instructions to follow them, and the companies have agreed to follow them, but it is very clear that they are not enforceable. No one can be charged or convicted of an offence under regulations that are not in force.

Starting way back in 1992, they had draft regulations, and the draft regulations were used as a guideline. It was believed at the time that the companies, and the companies had convinced the governments, knew best about how to manage safety in the offshore. They understood the industry, and they understood how it works. They would have used them as guidelines, but there was no right to refuse unsafe work, no enforceable obligations for occupational health and safety tests, and no ability of inspectors to lay charges in case something went wrong.

The excuse was always that we could take away their permits and stop them from operating, but that never happened. That did not happen in the offshore because that was too big a step to take. There were no inspectors regularly inspecting offshore, looking for infractions, dealing with them or even performing investigations after incidents had taken place. It was basically left up to the companies.

We have experienced, and we have seen, great disasters. The minister mentioned them. Everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador who was around at the time can remember vividly the sinking of the Ocean Ranger in 1982 and the loss of 84 lives.

It was a great and horrendous tragedy in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it, as was pointed out, led to an inquiry. The inquiry found the causes of the disaster. As always, there were multiple causes, most of which involved a lack of proper safety and a lack of proper planning for safety in the event of something occurring.

The same thing happened in 2009 with the Cougar Helicopters crash, flight 491, where 17 individuals lost their lives. That was the result of the failure to adequately ensure the helicopter was operated properly, even though there had been a crash in a similar helicopter a couple of years prior in Australia, and the cause of that crash was known.

This is something that we see happening in the offshore. Unfortunately, we see very serious incidents, but luckily, not many more disasters have taken place. The offshore companies have placed an emphasis on safety. I will not take that away from them. They continuously talk about it, but they also want to be in charge of it. They do not really want anyone else telling them how they should be behaving or making sure they are doing things right.

When it came to the helicopter inquiry by Justice Wells, who was a fine jurist and very fine man, he made a series of recommendations with respect to the offshore. The most important one, he said, was that there ought to be an independent regulator that would only have responsibility for looking after offshore health and safety.

An independent regulator would be able to focus on that, and it would not be subject to regulatory capture. This is a well-known term for when the companies have control over the process with ongoing consultation. They ensure that their voices are the loudest and heard by all who have a say. They also delay things, if necessary, to see if they can have a better opportunity to get the regime they want.

I very much believe that this is part of the delay that has led to where we are today. In the case of the government, I think it is shameful to have a lack of diligence in ensuring that there would not be a lapse in the regulations during which they cease to be enforceable, which has happened.

Yes, they are revived retroactively, but that does not do anything to provide enforcement to take place if something happens in the interim. In fact, the legislation that is before us today, which will pass, has a very specific reference to that issue. There is a clause in the bill that specifically says:

No person shall be convicted of an offence under a provision of a regulation revived under subsection (1) if the offence was committed during the period beginning on January 1, 2021 and ending on the day before the day on which this section comes into force.

This means that this section would not come into force until it is passed by the Governor General. Therefore, we have a lapse which specifically makes it impossible to charge anyone for something that may happen in the interim. This may be a technicality, but nevertheless, that is the reality of leaving that gap in place.

I will illustrate this point with an incident that was made known to the public on May 17 of this year by the Hibernia Management and Development Company, HMDC, the operator of the Hibernia platform. It reported that on May 13, 2021, two workers were engaged in the lift of a container when part of the crane rig assembly was dropped. There were no injuries, but there was a 10-metre drop, which could have been fatal.

The incident had the potential for a fatality, based on the dropped object prevention scheme calculator, which is an industry standard. This resulted, of course, in the ceasing of operations and an investigation to be carried out.

I will read from the last two paragraphs of HMDC's report, which says, “HMDC ceased all crane operations and has initiated an investigation into the root cause of the incident”, and rightly so. However, the next line reads, “The C-NLOPB is monitoring HMDC's investigation of the incident.”

Is it not interesting that the investigation into a safety incident that was a potential fatality was done by the company? Is it not the role of the body responsible for health and safety on the offshore to conduct an investigation and determine what the cause is? Is it not its role to find out from an independent objective body, responsible for health and safety investigations and ensuring that adequate systems are in place, if there was a violation of a regulation so it could potentially lay a charge?

No, it was being conducted by the company itself. That situation exists now under the current regulations, which were put in place in 2014. They are the ones we are discussing as to whether they should be made permanent or what the permanent regulations should be. To me it is illustrative of the whole history of the ongoing regime of offshore health and safety in the offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Nova Scotia as well.

This has been complained about in legislatures. When I was in the legislature in Newfoundland and Labrador as a member of that House of Assembly, I complained many times about the inadequacy of offshore health and safety regulations. The same thing was happening in Nova Scotia. It was under the same regime.

Only after the results of the Wells inquiry into offshore safety was it was decided that there ought to be enforceable regulations. These transitional regulations, which are there now, were brought in. It was decided there would be a consultation to make permanent regulations, but we still do not have permanent regulations six years after that legislation was passed.

As has been pointed out, not only did a delay take place, and we can list all the reasons why, though I will not rehash them, as the minister did a great job listing all the reasons why 300 pages of regulations could not be dealt with in six years, but it was to the point that it was not until the first week of December, with the regulations about to expire on December 31, that the government acted to extend these regulations for another year to allow it to complete the process.

That is obviously a failure of diligence, priorities and taking seriously the need for what we have been calling for for more than 25 years, which is that workers be protected by an effective, enforceable offshore health and safety regime. That is just not good enough. It shows a terrific disrespect for the importance of the health and safety of Newfoundland and Labrador workers and workers from all over the country who work offshore. We need to make sure that proper regulations are in place.

I say with some regret that we have not seen the proper respect for the recommendations that were made by Justice Wells. We have not seen a proper respect for the need for employer-employee involvement. There were advisory boards that were part of the legislation in 2014. This is 2021, and we do not have an offshore health and safety advisory board in place in Newfoundland and Labrador because the governments have failed to appoint them.

Only recently did the federal government appoint anyone on their side. The province has not done so yet. What is going on? Why is it that the workers in the offshore of Newfoundland and Labrador do not get the respect they deserve from government? Why are they not treated the same as workers would be on land?

Health and safety advisory committees are standard fare. There is supposed to be consultation. The Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour, the union representing two of the rigs offshore, has told me it has not been consulted on who the appointment should be representing workers. It is written into the legislation, but it has not been consulted.

What is going on? This is a serious case of neglect of the importance of this issue. It is a serious case of undervaluing the need for a regime, which has been recommended by Justice Wells. As I pointed out, he was a very thorough, considerate, judicial personage who, with a tremendous amount of experience and respect, made these recommendations and said they ought to be in place, they ought to be enforceable and they ought to be done by an independent board. This would ensure there is no opportunity for regulatory capture and ensure there is a focus, specifically in this case, on the health and safety of workers. We have tried everything else, so let us follow the example of Norway, Australia and the United Kingdom. They suffered in some cases from very serious disasters in their offshore and understood that it was necessary to have an independent body, which they now have.

I have a few minutes left, but I do not intend to use all of my time. We are agreeing, of course, to pass this legislation speedily today. We have been consulted on this for quite some time and have indicated our intention to support the bill, with speedy passage. However, we do want to take the time to ensure that people know that this is, in fact, a very black mark on the Government of Canada, both this one and the previous one, since it failed to take up the proper recommendations and follow through. Indeed, there is a mark on the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador as well for not appointing people to the offshore health and safety advisory board and insisting that the government play a role as well.

There are partners in this process and they all have their obligations to fulfill. In the case of the Government of Canada, it is the lead on this. It is the one with the experts and expertise. It has been putting its shoulder to the wheel, but it has not been putting its shoulder to the wheel very quickly, and the delays are unconscionable.

I would like to see this passed today, but I hope that despite whatever has happened between December and today with the passage of the bill, the people who are working on these 300 pages have gone through a few more pages. I certainly hope they were not waiting until we passed this legislation to get down to brass tacks and finish the job. We are prepared to finish the job today with respect to the legislation, but I wanted to point out the failings of the government in not getting the job done earlier and leaving the gap in place.

In the case of the incident that I referred to, if there was a reason for a violation of the regulations that existed, although I am not suggesting that there was at all, no charges could be laid because the bill we are passing today says specifically that we cannot do that. This points out and illustrates the difficult problems, as well as the government's failure in not properly bringing this legislation before the House in a timely fashion.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. It is so fortunate that we have someone with such a depth of knowledge on this issue. He has been involved with it for the last 30 years, ever since the offshore sector started in Newfoundland. He has been working with the workers to make sure they have these rights, and I can only imagine how frustrating it is for him to be here today talking about this.

The representative of one of the unions involved, Unifor, called this whole process an epic failure. I can ask a bunch of questions, but I will ask the member to zero in on the issue of the joint offshore health and safety advisory council. Apparently the federal government has appointed members to it, but Newfoundland and Labrador has not. There seems to be no process for the unions and workers to select their representatives.

I am wondering if the member can go back to that and explain some of the timelines. Why is this happening? Why can we not have that independence, with workers representing their rights for a safe workplace on that council?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved for many years and I know some of the players involved. I knew people who were victims of the Ocean Ranger tragedy. One was a classmate of mine from grammar school. In the case of the Cougar helicopter crash, a cousin of mine was one of the victims.

Most people in Newfoundland and Labrador have some connection to someone who died in one of those incidents, such as a member of their extended family. It is a well-known and excruciating reality that this is important to our province, yet we have seen a failure since 2014 to even appoint a board and do what Nova Scotia did. Its board was delayed, but it was appointed in 2019 and has been meeting twice a year since.

Why there is a failure in Newfoundland I cannot explain. It is up to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to do so. The failure to consult with workers shows disrespect for the process. It does not say that the board must be appointed by them, but they have to be consulted. I do not think they were even consulted in this place.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was good to hear the member from Newfoundland and Labrador, and I listened closely to his speech.

One concern I have with the general history of the current Liberal government is that it seems quick to talk the game when it comes to federal and provincial negotiations, but it does otherwise. This seems to be another example. Although at press conferences and meetings they say the right things, when it comes to actually accomplishing the objectives that are needed for the best interests of Canadians, the results look very different from what is noted in a press release or question in question period, whatever the case may be.

I am wondering if the member has further comments on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a serious disconnect between what is said and what is done when it comes to the Liberal government. Essentially, the kind of work we are talking about here is the work of government. It needs to make sure we are doing the work in the background and that what is happening is supposed to be happening. It is important in this case to the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to keep our eye on the obligations to ensure that we do not have a lapse in regulations, as we saw here starting on January 1.

I am shocked to see this, and I think the member put it well: We see lots of pretty talk about what the government stands for and what it believes in, but when it comes to following through, often we do not see anything.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to provide a couple of comments and a question. The legislation we have before us is a priority for the government. We care deeply about the health and safety of workers. We have a very strong advocacy group within the Atlantic caucus, and it would not take anything but a government to deal with the issue.

Does the member recognize that we should try to get this done before the summer? It appears that we have the political support to do that.

Also, in the last year there has been a great demand for other types of legislation and a legislative agenda to deal with the pandemic. For the government, a balancing is required, but this does not mean that the government is being insensitive to the workers. After all, we do want this legislation passed, and we appreciate the support and co-operation that is coming from the opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that a lot of legislation needs to be passed, but my concern here is different. The member talked about the forceful Atlantic caucus. How did this end up falling through the cracks? This could have been put in place in the fall. The co-operation the government is getting now would have been readily available in the fall because no one wants to see these regulations lapse.

There was no need for this kind of debate, frankly, and for accusing the government of falling asleep at the switch, failing to take seriously the rights of offshore workers and allowing legislation to lapse that was enforcing offshore regulations. That seems to be the problem I am concerned about.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe, Public Safety; the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Rail Transportation; and the hon. member for Vancouver East, Health.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill S-3, which is before Parliament today. As a member of Parliament from Newfoundland and Labrador, this issue is obviously important not only to me as a parliamentarian, but to many across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Let me start by saying that, unfortunately, there are many tragic events that shape the history, culture and strength of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Most of them have happened in the offshore industry or are somehow linked to the ocean, as ours is an ocean province of Canada.

One of them is definitely the Ocean Ranger disaster. That itself was a catalyst for safety in the offshore oil and gas industry. On February 15, 1982, the drilling and exploration of the industry off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and Labrador resulted in a tragedy like none other we had seen in our history. Just 267 kilometres from St. John's, 84 crew members tragically lost their lives. There were no survivors.

On March 13, 1985, we had the Universal helicopter crash in Placentia Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, which killed six people. It is another tragic, sad and unfortunate event in our history.

That brings us to March 12, 2009, just 12 years ago, when Cougar flight 491 crashed, killing 17 people en route from St. John's, Newfoundland, to the oil fields off our coastline. It is another sad, historic and tragic event that has shaped the province that we are proud of and call our home.

Those of us who live in Newfoundland and Labrador and work in occupations in the offshore oil industry, the offshore fishery or the many other industry sectors know that we work in a climate that is rugged. We work in an environment that is often harsh. We also know that in our history there has been tragic loss. We would like to think that in some cases we can do more to prevent tragic loss in the future.

In 2009, when the accident with the Cougar helicopter happened, I was the leader of the opposition for the Liberal Party in Newfoundland and Labrador. I remember that day very well and remember the days that followed. A regulatory body was appointed to look at safety in the offshore industry. I watched as many families crumbled in the midst of the tragedy and as they mourned their loss and the province mourned its loss. They were difficult days, and it was difficult to look into what needed to be done to create more safety and more protection for workers in that industry.

It has been a long and difficult road. I was an opposition leader at the time. I have served as much of my career politically in opposition as I have served in government. It is always easy to point a finger and ask, “Why was this not done?” or “Why could that not have been avoided?” Realistically, we live in a world where, unfortunately, we have come to learn from tragedy and to do better. That is what we are trying to do today in this country. We are trying to do better. We are trying to ensure that the safety, welfare and protection of people in the offshore oil and gas industry, whether in Newfoundland and Labrador or anywhere else in this country, are considered and that the safety regulations are upheld.

Earlier, one of my colleagues, who I work with at the natural resources committee, spoke about the work of Chief Justice Wells, as did my colleague for St. John's East, who was in the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature with me. Hansard can be checked, but I think between the two of us, not a day was missed to raise the issues of health and safety in the offshore industry.

Chief Justice Wells was appointed to do a job, which, in my opinion, he did well. He had a team of individuals who really worked hard to ensure that the recommendations and regulations around this industry would be sufficient, at least a starting point, to where we needed to go. The regulations came into force to a certain degree and, as the member for St. John's East outlined, some of them we still work toward. Just recently, the federal government made the first appointments to the health and safety board, and I am assured the province is falling in line and this board will be active in short order.

There are several things I want to highlight today.

This bill came to the natural resources committee, on which I sit as a member. We had an opportunity to question the minister, to evaluate the bill and study it on its merits. It absolutely got dealt with in short order and was supported by the entire committee, which is made up of all parties. I want to extend thanks to my colleagues on the natural resources committee for doing just that. They understood the importance of this and the task at hand for us. Therefore, we moved ahead.

For those who are not sure what this debate is about today, Bill S-3 would extend the application of six transitional occupational health and safety regulations under the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act. The transitional regulations were implemented in 2014 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, along with a five-year automatic repeal date to allow for the development of permanent regulations, which is where we are today. The repeal date was subsequently extended by one year via the Budget implementation Act, 2018, No. 2.

I want to assure members today that we are very committed to ensuring that the highest priority of health and safety and environmental protection in all aspects of our natural resources industries, most definitely in the sectors we are debating today, is held up and given the priority and interest that it deserves. I have heard different people in this debate ask why the bill has not moved forward more quickly and why it was not done a year ago. There is some legitimacy in the question and I accept that, but this bill is one that cannot be taken lightly.

The transitional occupation health and safety regulations under that act, as we know, were extended. We also know that these regulations are very complex and are to be looked at in tremendous detail and implemented in a course of action that reaches, protects and secures those who work in the industry to the greatest extent of our ability.

We launch many pieces of legislation in the House of Commons that we wish we could do in record time. A lot of times we set deadlines that cannot always be met, but no one should ever doubt our commitment to the safety, welfare and health of the offshore workers in every industry sector in Canada, in this case, the offshore workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that occupational health and safety regulations are important to all employees in all industries and workplace settings in Canada, including those in the offshore, and we need to do what we have a responsibility to do as a government to ensure they are enacted and followed.

In 2014, when the government amended the accord's act to clarify the legal framework for offshore occupational health and safety and to establish the transitional regulations, that was a highlight for us. Since that time, we have worked diligently with the government and industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Nova Scotia to develop permanent regulations that are tailored to the offshore, one of the most remote and dangerous places to work in our country today.

Will I be offended by those who feel we should have done it much more quickly than we have? I will not be, because these permanent regulations are there to protect lives. It is not a political gain and no one is playing games here. This is very serious business. Protecting the lives of those who work in a dangerous industry like we have in offshore oil and gas in Newfoundland and Labrador needs to be done cautiously and to the greatest extent possible to ensure that lives are protected in all aspects.

I am very proud of our record as a government when it comes to responding to the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

I was around in the days when the C-NLOPB was created, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. It is a world-class regime. We have grown to be proud of it in Newfoundland Labrador because we built it. It is ours, and it is working for people in our industry and for our industry as a whole. Can we improve upon it? Of course, we can. There is always room to improve.

When we look at the oil industry in this province, we have some of the lowest emissions per barrel in the world. It is sweet light crude. It is oil that will be a part of the mix for a very long time. When we are looking at future dependency on the oil industry itself, we are looking to sweet light crude. We are looking to places like Newfoundland and Labrador where we can produce low-emissions oil, where we can contribute to a world that is carbon conscious. That is so important for us in this industry, in this province.

I would like to mention the Atlantic accord, which we renewed. We all know that the Atlantic accord has been one of the most positive negotiations to have occurred between Ottawa and Newfoundland and Labrador since our Confederation. I will always compliment those who had a hand in it doing so, just like I am proud of our government for renewing the Atlantic accord for Newfoundland and Labrador, a $2.5 billion renewed accord.

We invested $400 million for workers and in lowering emissions in the oil and gas industry. When we were going through a pandemic, we did not walk away from workers in the oil and gas industry. We held on for them. They were not always easy days or easy negotiations, but through a lot of support and tremendous leadership of groups like the C-NLOPB, the Newfoundland and Labrador Oil and Gas Industries Association and many others, we were able to work with them on the industry recovery assistance fund and make other investments in the offshore oil industry for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Therefore, we did invest $400 million for workers in this province and to help lower emissions in the industry.

We helped move the environmental assessment for exploratory wells from 900 days, as it was, to 90 days. That in itself was a tremendous shift for the industry, allowing it to monopolize time and to invest money in different ways and to protect workers in this province.

We are proud of these things. As the members all know, this past year, since March 2020, we have been living in a different environment and a different climate. Whether it is in governance, investment, oil development or environmental protection, we have all been living through a different time. Yes, maybe we would have liked to move things around the regulations a lot sooner, but we are moving them, and we are moving them in the right direction.

When people live in a province like I do, that has had to succumb to so much tragedy and challenge in industry sectors, they will understand how very important it is to ensure that the health and safety of workers in the offshore industry and the oil industry in Newfoundland and Labrador are protected. When people work in an industry like this, they know it is built on pride but they also know it is an industry that can suffer tremendous loss, and that is the unfortunate thing about it.

I have a few more points to share.

I want to commend the minister, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, for the work he has done in leading this industry for us in Newfoundland and Labrador and in Canada and for the contributions he has made both in investment and in changing environmental legislation and, in this case, in providing the regulations for the protection of workers in the offshore industry. I appreciate the work he has done and his leadership on this issue. I also appreciate the work of all MPs in Newfoundland and Labrador and for their support on this, raising their voices over many years to ensure the protection of safety for workers in the industry.

I also want to commend the private sector, and I speak of Cougar Helicopters. I know that in the aftermath of what happened in 2009, it did a tremendous amount of work and made investments to ensure the health and safety of all its workers who travel with it and are affiliated with the company and the offshore industry. I have met with them many times. I am confident when I say the company has some of the best search and rescue capabilities today that exist anywhere in the country and probably anywhere in the world. It has not only emerged as a company that protects the rights, health, well-being and safety of workers in Canada, but it has brought those lessons and precedents for good, safe operations to many other jurisdictions around the world. I want to recognize it for what it continues to do day in and day out in this province.

Last, I want to recognize the work of Noia and Charlene Johnson, who I have dealt with on a number of occasions when dealing with the oil industry and listening to the messages of workers and industry stakeholders within the province. We have certainly respected their voices. We respect the tremendous amount of knowledge and the depth of experience their organization brings to issues like this and to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and for always being aware that we work in an industry that is tragic, an industry that is relentless on most days.

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have a history, from the early days of going to the ice in the seal hunt to today going to the offshore oil rigs. We have had a history of working in difficult and challenging environments. We have had a history of working in some of the most weather-beaten areas of the world.

When one walks the shores of Newfoundland and Labrador, one recognizes that. One only has to look at the geology that encompasses this land we call home to see the ancient rock, to see the wear and tear of our shorelines over many years and see how rugged the ocean can be and how difficult and harsh the environment is that we often work in as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

I thank my colleagues, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada, the Senate, everyone who has had a role to play in this, including the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, and I hope we can see the passage of these amendments and this bill today so we can move on with doing the important work that needs to be done in protecting the health and safety of offshore workers in Newfoundland and Labrador's oil industry.

I am happy to take some questions.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened quite attentively to the member's speech. I recognize that in some of these more remote parts of Canada there are specific needs that need to be addressed, and I appreciate her outlining that. I am just wondering if the member could explain to the House why Unifor, the union representing 700 of the 1,200 workers on the offshore, was not consulted on the labour representative for the occupational health and safety advisory committee.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the support the NDP is giving us toward this bill. Obviously, the committee is now being appointed to look at health and safety within the offshore board. We also know that the C-NLOPB is made up of representatives from across the province with different backgrounds and different skill sets who are able to represent the industry and the interests of workers as well. I really believe there is always room to make improvements, but I also believe that the people who make up these boards and those who are being proposed for appointment are people who have tremendous knowledge and skills and are able to make valuable contributions toward the interests and the protection of safety of workers.