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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

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

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, Minister of Natural Resources]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would request that this carry on division.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I therefore declare the motion carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today from my home on the island of Newfoundland, which is the ancestral homeland of the Mi'kmaq and Beothuk peoples.

It is also one of Canada's three proud oil-producing provinces.

Before getting into my remarks on the legislation before us today, let me start with this. We just came out of a vote and question period and when we debate in this place, they are debates of great importance. They are issues that matter to us, who have the privilege to sit in this hallowed chamber, and to Canadians across the country. There is a lot of passion around these issues, particularly around issues of energy, oil and gas, climate change, the economy. We are at a particular moment in time, a defining moment, one where globally we are charting pathways now to net zero.

Over the past couple of weeks, there have been several significant developments. The International Energy Agency issued a report on pathways to net zero, the first analysis that is compliant with limiting a rise in global temperature to 1.5°C. Canada called on the IEA to conduct the report, because the world needs to know what it will take to get to net zero.

In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Dame Moya Greene issued a report on our future. It is an unflinching look at a dire situation. There is no sense beating around the bush there. There is a lot of hard work ahead of us and a lot of tough decisions.

Just yesterday, a landmark decision by a court in the Netherlands ordered Royal Dutch Shell to cut emissions by 45% by 2030. Shareholders of another major oil producer, Chevron, backed a proposal to cut emissions generated by the use of the company's products. ExxonMobil shareholders voted just yesterday to install two new independent directors in a rebuke of the company's efforts to address climate change to date. Some have called May 26 “big oil's day of reckoning”.

What all these events demonstrate is that the world is calling for increased climate ambition. The market is demanding it. Investors, we learned yesterday, are demanding it. Governments are taking action and companies are taking action. Suncor has committed now to net zero in a clear sign of Canadian leadership. There is a clear direction in which the world is heading. We know where the puck is heading. It is heading toward net zero, and we will have many important debate and conversations on Canada's pathway to net-zero emissions by 2050, how that will change our energy mix in the future, the economic opportunities that it presents, particularly for oil and gas workers who will lead the effort to lower emissions. They are already doing it.

There will be tough conversations, difficult and passionate debates, but the debate before us today on this legislation is one that we can all agree is of the utmost importance and cannot be derailed by the broader conversations about our energy future. This is about the people at the heart of the country, about our workers and protecting them. That fact is what needs to guide our debate here today.

This issue is important to me. It is personal. It is about an industry that has brought so many benefits to my province. It impacts the workers here, my neighbours and friends who work in the offshore.

I remember vividly the industry's nascent days. I was a young fellow working for Brian Tobin, when he was premier some 20-odd years ago, when the first platform, Hybernia, was under construction. Hopes were sky-high after so much despair over the cod fishery collapse. It was a bleak time. Families were split because so many young people had to go west to make a living.

Today, it is a proud and mature industry. It is one that has accounted over the years for 30% of our economy and one out of every 10 jobs, 10% employment over the years. It has provided the provincial government here with more than $20 billion in royalties between 1997 and 2019, funding key public services, from health and education to highways and hockey rinks.

The offshore industry in the Atlantic has also created jobs and wealth for Nova Scotians prior to and during the recent decommissioning of its two gas projects: $8.5 billion in capital spending over 20 years, producing $1.9 billion in royalty payments between 2000 and 2017. It was a long road to get to that point, to realize the economic benefits of this industry, and there were many doubters along the way.

For starters, low world oil prices made the whole notion seem like a fantasy prior to the energy crises of the 1970s, but we also had to deal with monumental challenges posed by safely extracting oil in a treacherous and unforgiving North Atlantic. We owe it to these workers to protect them and to do so with the best occupational health and safety regime in the world. We must protect these workers.

How best do we do that? By adopting a world-class safety regime. I believe that and I support that. Bill S-3 will help.

Let us be frank about what we are debating today. This is a three-clause bill. It extends health and safety regulations for workers in the offshore, for workers who work in a high-risk environment.

I know my colleague across the way, the member for St. John's East, understands, very well, the risks that these workers face. In fact, I remember the CEO of ExxonMobil Canada telling me that the Newfoundland offshore is the harshest environment in which his company operates in the world.

Bill S-3 would give Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia an additional year, to December 31, 2021, to finalize the numerous health and safety regulations that stem from the 2014 legislation, regulations to make our workers safer. Should Bill S-3 become law, the transitional regulations from 2014 will apply retroactively to January 1, 2021.

As I said, it is a three-clause bill. We all agree that no worker in any workplace should go unprotected. Therefore, I would hope that this bill would pass easily. It should pass quickly and today. It should be the last day that it is debated in this House.

In fact, my office has reached out to my opposition critics and colleagues across the way so that we could do just that every step of the way. To the member for Calgary Centre, the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay, the member for Jonquière and the member for St. John's East, I am happy to report that these were constructive conversations and that we had a constructive relationship between us on this. I urged them to work with the government, in the spirit of protecting Canada's workers, to send the bill to the standing committee and urged the standing committee to study it at its earliest opportunity. I appeared before the standing committee alongside departmental officials. Before Bill S-3 was introduced in this House, it went through a similar process in the other place and I appeared in front of our hon. colleagues from the other place, who held committee hearings on this bill, to explain why we are where we are today.

The extent to which this three-clause bill continues to be debated is not because of the substance of the bill. As I mentioned, I think there would be unanimity across all parties in this House to support the passage of the legislation. If they read a Hansard of the second-reading debate on this bill, they would be forgiven for thinking that the debate was circular.

Nearly every speech by every member of every party in this House agreed on the importance of the bill and the importance of passing it quickly. Nearly every speech by every member of every party in this House referenced the 1982 Ocean Ranger tragedy that left 84 dead and the royal commission of inquiry that led to many safety improvements. Nearly every speech by every member of every party in this House referenced the fatal crash of Cougar Flight 491 in 2009 and the ensuing commission of inquiry that Mr. Justice Robert Wells conducted, which led to the sweeping reforms contained in the Offshore Health and Safety Act passed in 2014. These were raised in nearly every speech by every member of every party in this House.

There is no daylight between us in terms of protecting our workers, and there should not be, so why are we still debating this? Why does a three-clause bill merit hours of additional debate, when there is unanimity on the importance of protecting workers here, while Canadians expect their Parliament to get on with the business of building back better and recovering from COVID-19? Simply put, there is a load of politics afoot, let me say that. There is a concerted desire to delay debate on anything and everything, regardless of the issue; and, in this case, ironically, to further delay the very thing that the opposition members are lambasting this government for delaying.

Many speeches referenced that it has taken far too long to put in place permanent regulations, that a further delay of 24 months would be far too long, and we listened and we agreed. We accepted the amendments from the other place to drop it to 12 months. We heard that the delay in having a permanent occupational health and safety regime for protecting offshore workers is unconscionable. To the members across the way today, I say, “look, fair game, I agree”; I say “yes, it has taken far too long”. It is frustrating. I am frustrated. I said it during the committee hearings in the other place, I said it before the standing committee, and I will repeat it today: This has taken far too long.

Now, I could list the reasons why the complex work of drafting regulations in partnership with two provincial governments and two offshore boards, respecting our joint management frameworks and the jurisdiction of provinces, all takes time. I could speak about the 15,000 pages of documents that they have to go through to align with and incorporate by reference the over 173 domestic and international health and safety standards. I could speak to the time that we lost by needing to fix the initial interim regulations because the industry told us it did not work for them, that it burdened them; I could speak about how that fix set us back. I could also speak to how this very pandemic that we are in has set us back; how the sudden, abrupt shutdown of workplaces forced us to adapt to working from home, how adapting took time. Mr. Speaker, just think of how long it took this House to adapt and put in place measures to safely continue with our work. Those are all very legitimate and contributing factors as to why we are where we are today, but those reasons do not make workers safer, they do not support workers and they do not advance this legislation.

We need to pass this bill. We need to get on with the business of finalizing these permanent regulations with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Nova Scotia, the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and with industry.

Despite these challenges, our officials and their counterparts in Newfoundland and Labrador, and in Nova Scotia have passed many milestones. We are close. I instructed my officials to get this work done by the new proposed deadline. I am confident we will. I know we will.

However, we need to pass Bill S-3 today, without further delay. If the opposition members really want to protect workers, they now have the opportunity to do so by putting partisan politics aside, doing what needs to be done and passing this bill.

As a son of Newfoundland and Labrador, I am proud of what we have achieved in this industry since it began to take root in the 1960s. The offshore industry has made life better for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It has kept families from separating in order to find work on the mainland. It also gave some of them the expertise so that they could find good work on the mainland.

I am also proud of the reality that not since the time of Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie has there been a federal government that has done more for the offshore. It was this government that gave $2.5 billion to Newfoundland and Labrador as a part of the renewed Atlantic Accord in 2019. It was this government that supported workers in the offshore during a pandemic with close to $400 million to maintain jobs and lower emissions. It was this government that reduced the time for exploratory drilling assessments from over 900 days to 90, without losing an ounce of environmental integrity.

I recently announced 16 projects funded through the offshore component of the emissions reduction fund with an eye to the future; projects that use carbon capture, wind and other renewable sources of energy to power the industry's operations; projects that will lower emissions; real projects that are creating real jobs for the workers who are building our low-emissions energy future right now.

As I conclude my remarks, let me plainly state that the only thing that matters during debate on this bill is the people involved, the workers: protecting them, supporting them and believing in them. The workers on those platforms in the North Atlantic, the workers who service them, the workers who are at the heart of this industry that made our province what it is and the workers who are building our prosperous and cleaner future need to be protected. We need to protect them with a safety regime that is world class. They deserve absolutely nothing less.

Bill S-3 will help us get there. Let us do our jobs. Let us pass Bill S-3.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was quite shocked by the minister's remarks. This bill came through the Senate. It was passed in a single sitting at second reading. I sit at the natural resources committee. We passed it in a single meeting. Now, today, it is going to have less than a couple of hours of debate and it is going to pass in this House.

Does the minister think that five years of inaction from his government is acceptable? Why does the minister think that democracy is inconvenient? We have fast-tracked this bill. We have worked together to get this bill through. How can the minister say that there have been delays?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, these regulations are very complex. In total they are nearly 300 pages. We did not want to take shortcuts, as I have told the hon. member at committee. We owe it to our workers. We owe them to keep them safe. We had to consider 173 domestic and international standards, which amounts to over 15,000 pages in total. They are developed to be consistent with the joint management framework that characterizes the Atlantic offshore.

Regulations must be vetted and agreed upon by Canada, by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and by the Government of Nova Scotia. It is three governments. It is not something that happens with the snap of someone's fingers. It is complex. It takes time and that is precisely why the original bill in 2014 included a five-year period to get it done.

There has been extensive engagement of stakeholders, particularly through 2016 to 2018. In fact, there was an amendment of the transitional regulations in 2017 to address a number of administrative irritants. That fix set us back some time.

Then there is COVID. No one can ignore the impacts of that, which we are confronting. It has forced us to change everything that we do. For institutional processes like regulation drafting, adapting to virtual working was challenging. It took time, but I am confident that the work that remains can be completed with the time that this bill will provide, if passed.

I am grateful for the thorough going-over that it has received at committee and I thank the hon. member for his work.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, am very surprised by the minister talking about the delay of the passage of this legislation.

First of all, the fact is we are almost into June and the regulations expired in December. Is he suggesting that nothing has been done in the last four or five months? Has everything stopped? The only thing that stopped was the government actually ensuring there was no gap and there was no gap in the regulations.

Offshore workers have been waiting since 1992, when offshore health and safety was passed over to the C-NLOPB for permanent enforceable regulations in the offshore. This minister and his government have been responsible for six years of that, and he is blaming it on a failure to pass the bill? This will pass today, as the previous speaker pointed out. Is the minister saying the delay is the fault of this House?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as I have stated before, and not only am I opening comments now, but as I also stated in committee, I have been frustrated with the delays involved. I accepted the amendment as suggested by the other place, and accepted that it should be 12 months and not 24 more months.

There cannot be any shortcuts when it comes to the health and safety of workers in our offshore. We can take no shortcuts when it comes to keeping them safe. While the bill may only have three clauses, I think we can all agree the regulations that they address are far more substantial.

We have a detailed implementation schedule in place with the Department of Justice and with our provincial partners in Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. As I have noted, there is a number of statutory requirements, as well as stakeholder engagement and provincial coordination that has to happen. Particularly in the current pandemic environment, this is not something that we can take shortcuts on.

We need to get these regulations right. That is what the workers in our offshore deserve, nothing less.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister. We want to make sure we get this right. This Parliament wants to make sure it goes through the process in an appropriate fashion, and it will be passed today.

However, what we are seeing over and over again from the Liberal government is this ramming through of bills, creating a crisis and not reacting until it is a crisis. For example, the CUSMA, we rammed that through before COVID. The Canada-U.K. trade agreement, we rammed that through in the last minutes. Again, time was never given to Parliament to properly do the appropriate job.

We do want to get this right, and this will get passed. However, the government knows the deadlines. Why can the government not say, “Okay, the deadline is X, I need to start two years before that, five years before that.” Why does the government wait until the last minute, dump it on Parliament, and then force us to react and scrounge and give up our liberties here in Parliament to properly vet something on a piece of legislation?

Why can the government not be more proactive and less reactive in the event of a crisis?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to misjudge or mischaracterize the amount of work that has gone on outside of this chamber. All parties and both chambers of Parliament have worked expeditiously on this bill, doing their due diligence. In a minority Parliament, there has been co-operation, collaboration and regular communication. I am grateful for that.

When it became clear in the fall of 2020 that the final regs would not be completed by December 31, the governments of Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia each took legislative steps to extend the transition period so that workers would be protected under the existing occupational health and safety framework.

For the federal government to signal our intent, this bill was introduced in the Senate on December 1. The bill was amended, and it was passed by the Senate in mid-February. It was then introduced in the House. In a similar time frame, it has now passed through committee.

This is something that we understand to be very serious. Once again, I am grateful for the amount of work on all sides of this House, behind the scenes, to make sure that we are in the place where we are today.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the minister, first on all, on his work on this particular issue.

I want to ask him about all the work that has been done vis-à-vis the institution known as the C-NLOPB. This is a unique situation that we have within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as in Nova Scotia and their board as well. I would like the minister to illustrate all the work that has been done by them in light of the dual jurisdiction that they have. Could the minister explain the C-NLOPB's important input into this process?

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows very well, the C-NLOPB and the C-NSOPB are true examples of shared jurisdiction and co-operation between provinces and the federal government. I am extremely familiar with the C-NLOPB. What we have managed to do is create one of the finest regulatory regimes for offshore oil in the world, in an area of shared jurisdiction.

It does mean, of course, that we have to be very careful and make sure major changes like this are done in concert and done together. This government has always respected the jurisdiction of the C-NLOPB, and it is seen in Newfoundland and Labrador as a significant accomplishment. We have not only respected the C-NLOPB, but we have strengthened it. In terms of what we have done for the offshore, no federal government since the time of Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie has done more here in Newfoundland. I do not make this statement loosely. I make it sincerely and truthfully.

There was $2.5 billion given through the renewal of the Atlantic Accord in 2019. Another $320 million went to the province to support workers and increase environmental performance of the offshore, and on top of that we put $75 million for the emissions reduction—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are going to try to leave enough time to get one more question in here.

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

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

Mr. Speaker, the people at the centre of this, and the people who have been really affected by this, are the offshore workers. They are represented by unions, most of them by Unifor, yet they have not been consulted properly on this. They should be allowed to choose their own representative on the health and safety council.

I just wonder this: Would the minister be open to making that change? It would not require legislative change, but change to the mandate so that there is greater transparency and more access for the workers to have a say in their own safety.

[Seamus O'Regan, Liberal, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, certainly we have worked hand in glove with unions and have consulted with them vigorously. It is important that I make the point that we have consulted with them. I know at committee they have spoken about such consultations, and it is important also to remember that they remain protected. The North Atlantic is a harsh environment to operate in, but it is not the wild west out there. The legal framework continues to be in place: It has been since 2014, and workers in the offshore are protected under the best health and safety regulatory regimes in the world. As I mentioned, we need to continue to improve the C-NLOPB. That is why it is the best: because we are continually working at it to make sure it works for our workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of getting this important legislation passed so we can get it to the next stage and provide these protections for workers I could give a 20-minute speech, but I will be giving a significantly shorter speech on this.

There is one personal note I want to add. I was texted this morning, after I completed my speech, that my first niece was born today. Her name is Maeve Elizabeth Danielle Penner, and her mom is doing great. We are all very happy and blessed to have this new beautiful baby girl in our family.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act. It is about time this important legislation to protect the safety of workers made its way through the House of Commons.

The Liberal government failed to get this legislation passed in a timely manner, which has put the safety of offshore workers at risk. We debate a lot of important issues in the House, but out of the many pieces of legislation I have seen the government put forward over the past few years, few bills could be more important than ensuring the safety of workers. In this case, we are talking about offshore energy workers.

How did we get to this point? We are now in a situation where important safeguards have been allowed to lapse. These safeguards were put in place by a previous Conservative government over five years ago, but not acted upon by the current Liberal government until it was too late. Thankfully, no one appears to have been harmed by the lack of action on this file, but it remains inexcusable that we have come to this point in the first place.

At the end of last year, the Liberals allowed the existing temporary safety regulations for our offshore oil and gas workers to expire. In effect, this stripped key health and safety protections for these Canadian workers who risk their lives every day to ensure we have the resources to heat our homes and drive our vehicles to work. These workers, in this case primarily from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are a pillar that supports the economy of the province and this country.

The province has elected a lot of Liberal MPs. The Minister of Natural Resources comes from the province, yet it appears that little attention has been paid to this important issue.

Most people would not know it, but I had the privilege of working in our onshore energy sector. I donned my personal protective equipment and H2S monitor and went to work in Canada's energy industrial heartland in Edmonton, Alberta. I spent two summers in university working the shutdowns at the Imperial Oil refinery in Strathcona. On site we had plenty of heavy equipment moving around and we did the jobs that needed to be done to ensure the facility could run smoothly, create jobs and support our economy. I remember working the night shift, 12 hours a day, day in and day out, for weeks. I picked up extra hours at the end of each shift and put on a HiVis vest to do traffic control and ensure that the tired workers would not accidentally be run over as they went home from their shifts. I stood watch as skilled workers went deep into systems to ensure that first aid would be readily available for them in case of danger. This was on the land. I can only imagine the dangers faced by those on the east coast who get on a helicopter and head out to platforms far at sea, sometimes in bad weather.

Tragedies from our past demonstrate just how critical it is for these safety regulations to be in place. Canadians were devastated in 1982 by the news of the Ocean Ranger rig and 84 workers who lost their lives when it capsized during a storm, and again in 2009 by news of Cougar Helicopters Flight 491 crashing into the North Atlantic, resulting in the tragic deaths of 17 offshore oil workers. This tragedy led to the Cougar inquiry, the results of which were taken by governments to pass this important legislation. After each of these disasters, there were investigations into their causes and recommendations on how to avert these dangers in the future. I am sure that politicians spoke to the devastated families, promising that never again would this be allowed to happen, yet here we are today debating legislation that should have been passed months, if not years, ago.

It was the previous Conservative government that recognized the very real need for these protections. That is why, in 2014, the government passed safety regulations through the Offshore Health and Safety Act. That is exactly the kind of leadership that we need in this country: We need a government that is proactive and not reactive, and that takes prompt action to protect the safety of our workers.

These temporary regulations were set to expire in 2019. They gave the Liberal government years to implement permanent offshore energy safety regulations. The Liberals had to extend that deadline for another year. They extended those temporary regulations to December 31, 2020. The Liberals had time to get the job done.

For many of those years, they had a majority. The fact is, even now in the current minority government, the Liberals have the political support to get the job done but they have not, until now, and that is inexcusable. It was not days, and it was not the month of the deadline in December, that the Liberal government finally introduced Bill S-3 in the other place. Where was the Liberals' sense of urgency? It really feels like an afterthought, as if the safety of these workers was not of great importance to the government. Why did the Prime Minister, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Liberal government wait until the last minute to do their jobs? An important deadline has been missed. Key protections are missing. The Liberal government dithers. Perhaps if the government had not chosen to prorogue Parliament and waste many additional days of productive debate, we could have had this passed before the deadline. We will never know, but what we do know for sure is that the Liberal government did not care to make this a priority.

I am also disappointed, for another reason, that this legislation was not introduced until last year. It would have been a fitting tribute to Judge Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador, who did so much to advocate for the safety of offshore workers. Sadly, in October 2020, Judge Wells, who headed the Cougar inquiry, passed away at the age of 87. Judge Wells was a former Progressive Conservative cabinet minister provincially, and was a Rhodes scholar. As commissioner, his key contribution to the inquiry was the recommendation that helicopters have 30 minutes or more of run-dry capability. He also recommended founding a full search and rescue base in St. John's. I wish the government had its act together and had passed this legislation in advance of the deadline so that Judge Wells could have seen his legacy put permanently into action. All the same, I want to commend him for his service to our country and to his province. He will be remembered for his commitment to the welfare of offshore energy workers and their families.

The delayed passage of Bill S-3 is just another example of how the current Liberal government has failed to prioritize the needs of the men and women who work in our oil and gas sector. In fact, I noted with some surprise that the minister said the words “one of three oil-producing Canadian provinces”, seemingly unaware that more than three provinces in this country produce oil. If it was not bad enough that the government was failing to get key safety legislation passed by the deadline, it also seems intent on phasing out the livelihoods of these oil and gas workers.

We know that Newfoundland and Labrador relies on the energy sector more than every other province, including Alberta. We know that the future of Newfoundland and Labrador requires a strong offshore oil and gas sector. In fact, it is so important to that province that the word “oil” is mentioned nearly 150 times in the recent Greene report outlining the economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador, yet the Liberal government continues its attack on the oil sector with bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 in the previous Parliament, and by not acting on key legislation like Bill S-3, which we are debating today.

Something close to 147 days have passed since the Liberal delays allowed for the existing legislation to expire. That is 147 days that hard-working offshore oil and gas workers have been left in limbo without protections.

I want to recognize the hard work done by those in the other place in passing Bill S-3 as expediently as possible. Recognizing the urgency of this bill, it is unacceptable that after passing in the Senate so quickly, the bill waited in the lineup to get through the House of Commons' agenda. We knew that members in the House were intent on getting the legislation through quickly at second reading and passed immediately.

I sit on the natural resources committee, and we moved with unprecedented speed to get this bill through. It was one meeting. It is my sincere hope that we can push forward with the debate today, get the bill passed and secure these key protections for our offshore oil and gas workers.

As members of the House, protecting Canadian workers must be a key priority. That is why the Conservatives have been co-operative in working to get this bill passed as quickly as possible. The failure to protect offshore energy workers is unconscionable and must end. It is time that we finally get the job done and secure these protections so these workers can continue going about their jobs safely and so we can ensure the prosperity and future not only of Newfoundland and Labrador but of our nation, Canada.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, members will recall that, in June 2020, the Prime Minister of Canada exempted all exploratory drilling in the marine environment off the coast of Newfoundland from the existing environmental assessment process. My question is very simple. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we know, in the context of June 2020, that we had an unprecedented drop in the value of oil. I do not understand quite fully the context of the government's decisions in this case, as the member said, to drop certain protections, but I can assure him, speaking for myself and the Conservative Party, that we understand that strong environmental and regulatory protections are absolutely vital, not only to protect our environment but to protect the safety of the workers who risk their lives every day when they get on these platforms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent speech on the importance of the industry to Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada. I join him in his praise of Justice Wells, who I knew well. He was an excellent jurist and a fine man to boot. He recommended in his report on the Cougar helicopter crash and safety inquiry on the offshore that there be an independent board to deal with safety on the offshore just as exists in Norway, Australia and the U.K. He said that it was his most important recommendation.

Why did the Conservative government, in 2014, refuse to follow that recommendation and left us with a board that is responsible not only for safety, but also for the environment, production goals and promoting the offshore? Could he tell us that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was elected as a member of Parliament in 2017 and was not privy to the discussions and the back and forth among the province, the industry and the federal government under the previous Conservative government when this legislation came forward. I am not in a position today to make any commitments on this issue.

It is important that we continue to consult with industry, the province and the workers, as the member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay suggested, to ensure that we not only have a viable, sustainable industry that can provide economic benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but also an industry that is responsible, promotes the highest levels of safety and the highest levels of environmental protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly echo the comments of the hon. member for St. John's East in lamenting that we do not have an independent board for worker safety.

I would also point out for my hon. colleague that both the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board and the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board have embedded within the legislation a conflict of interest in that the regulator for environment and for worker safety is also mandated to expand oil and gas production.

This inherent conflict of interest made it very inappropriate that both the Harper Conservatives and the current Liberal government have embedded an environmental assessment, but the offshore petroleum boards can also run the environmental assessment hearings as well as promoting the expansion of oil and gas.

I think it is unlikely my hon. friend for Sturgeon River—Parkland would agree with me, but I find the record of the government entirely on the side of expanding oil and gas in the offshore of both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, failing to provide the kind of independent regulators that were put in place in the United States after the Gulf of Mexico disaster, the Horizon disaster, and in the case of the Cougar helicopter crash, failing to protect the workers.

I wonder if my hon. colleague has considered it from the point of view of this embedded conflict of interest.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member. She is right that we will not be agreeing on this issue, necessarily.

Being a member of Parliament from Alberta, I am a strong champion of our oil and gas sector and of the workers who work in it. The member opposite has her own constituency of which she is thinking.

I respect the work that these resource boards do. I know they want to uphold the highest levels of environmental protections. It is critical that we support an industry in a responsible manner, protecting the safety of workers and protecting the highest levels of environmental safety, because this is such a key component of the economic prosperity of our country.

As we saw with the green report in Newfoundland and Labrador, it is simply not a question that the future of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador will rely upon the sustainability and future of the offshore oil and gas sector.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, during his debate, the member continually promoted a falsehood, which that side of the House has promoted time and time again. He kept saying that if we had not prorogued in the summer, we could have dealt with this issue then.

Does the member not realize that the special rules of the House, put in place between March and September, were that anything that was discussed had to be specifically with respect to COVID?

What he is saying is actually false. Perhaps the member wants to stand, correct the record and apologize for misleading Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is certainly entitled to his histrionics in this place.

However, we have a case where we saw the government waste a number of productive days of debate when it prorogued the House. Maybe this bill would not necessarily have been talked about. In fact, I know it would not have been talked about, because the government did not have its act together and did not get it introduced until December.

What we do know is that we have a full legislative calendar in this place. Having to restart the agenda on all the legislation after the prorogation certainly backed up the legislative agenda of the country and this Parliament and made it that much harder for us to get this legislation passed in an expedited manner.

I will not apologize to that member.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly totally agree that this legislation needs to be passed, but in the context of the debate today, I heard something of a fairy tale about a wonderful agency that works well and regulates to protect workers and protects the environment. The fairy tale says that this is the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Unfortunately, we know from the Wells report that it should have been much more vigilant when 17 people died in the Cougar crash, but I want to focus also on the negligence of the agency in protecting the environment.

As I said earlier, it has a built-in conflict of interest in that its job is to promote offshore oil and gas. Many scientists, including Professor Ian Jones at Memorial University, whom I am sure the hon. member knows of, and a number of scientists within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, have lamented that the Canada-Newfoundland & Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board seems to have a fictitious approach to protection for marine mammals from seismic testing. Seismic testing causes noise levels of as much as 260 decibels 24-7 in the offshore.

I wonder if the hon. member would not agree that it would be better to have separate agencies protect workers and protect the environment.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for her always insightful comments into debate.

Obviously, in the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador, when we look at the C-NLOPB, we look at it as something that was built in Newfoundland and Labrador. Very seldom in our history have we had autonomy or control over any resource development sector within our backyard. The C-NLOPB was the world-class regime that was created to do that. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Can it be improved? We all recognize that it can be improved, even going back to the recommendations of the regulatory review that was done. We are looking to try to make those transitions and to look at those improvements.

When it comes to the environmental protections, we did complete overhauls with regard to environmental regulations and legislation as it relates to Canada's resource development sector. That is governed by legislation. While many may feel that this process is too lenient, there are others who feel it is not lenient enough. There is always a crossover in terms of whether there is a happy medium here or not.

I think the only thing that really makes concrete sense is ensuring that we have environmental regulations that are well-thought-out, that look to the protection of the marine environment and the natural environment itself, and that ensure there is cohesion between resource development and the environment. Any time those targets are not being met, I think there is always room for re-evaluation and for further discussion.

We need to ensure that parties are always open to that and that these things are not done to the detriment of other interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's speech with great interest and certainly will be curious to go back to listen to some of her comments regarding resource development and provincial jurisdiction. I am not quite sure of the context in which those comments were made, but it certainly will be interesting.

A number of individuals have highlighted the fact that this seems to have been delayed quite significantly. This is simply another extension on top of a number of other extensions. I am curious to ask the member specifically, is this something that we are going to see come before the House again before the end of the year, looking for another extension on top of this? Does it appear that the negotiations are going along at a rate that can see that this transition is actually a transition and not simply another step that will require a further transitional agreement?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, what we are doing today is basically an amendment around a time process to establish the transitional regulations as was introduced previously. We have been working very diligently as a government with Newfoundland and Labrador, and with Nova Scotia, to develop permanent regulations, regulations tailored directly to the offshore industry in those particular regions.

As I have said, we are dealing with some of the most remote and dangerous places in the country to work, and the workers there deserve to have the amount of time, interest and knowledge invested into ensuring that these regulations are not only tailored to the dangerous and remote working conditions that they find themselves in, but they are also there to ensure that they are safe.

We know these are complex regulations. It is our hope that it will be completed in the timetable outlined. We are not foreseeing, at this stage, that there could be further delays.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard many times in this debate that the government's top priority is this bill, as it has said about many other bills. I have also heard many times that the Liberals have the backs of the workers, but the problem is that they let this legislation lapse. Where is the workers protection? They go to work to earn an income, they come home to their families and they want to be safe. Now they are risking their lives because there is no legislation to back them up.

Why should workers believe you now, that you have their back and this is a priority, when you have failed them since December 2020?

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I would remind hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out once again to the member that these are complex regulations and, as I said, they are being tailored to a very unique industry in the offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador. The accord also acts to establish a joint management framework where Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia are equal partners. All three governments must have the opportunity to vet the regulations through their approval processes, not just the Government of Canada.

There have been unanticipated events. The global pandemic had an impact on the delay, let us not kid ourselves. It has had an impact on everything we have been doing as citizens in this country and around the world. There are sometimes going to be unanticipated events like this pandemic. The timing of the bill reflects the recent delays that we have seen as part of COVID. I think the member knows and understands that.

These amendments would provide continuity in the regulatory framework for the transitional regulations that were automatically repealed on December 31, 2020. As the member will see, clause 3 of the bill ensures that the regulations will be revived and retroactive to January 1, 2021 and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We have come to the end of the time allocated for the hon. member.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be able to enter into debate on this important subject, certainly when it deals with one of the most important industries in this country and specifically Bill S-3. It deals with the safety of workers within Canada's oil and gas sector, specifically the offshore oil and gas sector. I will get into some specifics around this bill and highlight some of the realities faced by an industry that I am quite familiar with when it comes to the onshore side of oil and gas. I am less familiar with the offshore, but certainly am proud of the contribution that it makes to the Canadian economy.

I want to start by addressing a number of things that the minister stated in his remarks when we opened the debate on Bill S-3 a bit earlier this afternoon. I do find it quite tragic, actually, that even the minister's own department talks about all of the provinces in this country that produce oil and gas, but he seems to reference quite often that there are three oil and gas-producing provinces in this country. In fact there are more than seven, with some further legacy production associated with it, and the impact of oil and gas is truly national whether on the revenue side of the government's balance sheet, through royalties or the fact that the economic impacts are truly significant.

When we have an industry like the oil and gas sector, in any of the dozens of communities that I represent small businesses are impacted by oil and gas. In many cases, we see a truly national impact through that economy. I want to specifically address that and a couple of other things that I will get to. Whether intentionally or not, either way, it is troubling that the impact of the oil and gas sector is seemingly diminished in both our current national economy but also the important place that I believe it has in the coming years and decades. Even as the members opposite like to often talk about this transition, the reality is that oil and gas still plays a key role, and I will get into some of the specifics around that.

Further, we are seeing a bit more often, especially when the Liberal hypocrisy on Line 5 and KXL is being called out, that the Liberals seem to up their rhetoric when it comes to the transition side. It seems to be the trend of left-leaning parties to bolster and talk about the impending energy transition. They will talk about the tough decisions that have to be made, and, yet, they refuse to acknowledge the reality that exists within an industry that is not going away anytime soon but can lead the world when it comes to an industry that will see demand. Even the most conservative estimates see oil and gas demand increasing for about two decades. We saw a significant decrease in demand during the COVID-19 pandemic, but that is estimated to exceed pre-pandemic levels in the coming months, maybe sooner, depending on the rate of economic recovery.

I find it troubling that there is a lot of talk around how tough decisions have to be made, how we have to somehow punish the proud workers within these sectors in the offshore side of the industry off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, the workers in a factory that has contracts with oil sands companies, or the constituents whom I represent who travel to work in camps up north or check wells locally, some even part-time. In fact, I was speaking to a retiree here recently who still checks a few wells on a part-time basis to help supplement their income. It is troubling that there is such a narrow focus and a refusal to acknowledge the reality that exists in Canada's energy sector.

Finally, politics are being played with the talk around the delay. It could not be further from the truth that the Liberals are quick to blame the opposition for all the ills of the world, that is simply not true. The reality is the government has mismanaged the legislative agenda and, in fact, not just in this Parliament. Canadians have a lot of understanding, given the fact we have faced a global pandemic and that there are significant challenges associated with a number of bills that nobody could have anticipated.

Canadians and the opposition acknowledge that. However, here is the reality, the government, time and time again, has demonstrated that it does not negotiate in good faith, that it is willing to play political games, and that it is more reactive than anything when it comes to the issues it faces.

I will point back to prior to when I was elected. About halfway through the last Parliament, it seemed like the government got busy on the legislative side of things. I remember reading a column about halfway through the last Parliament. I am paraphrasing but the headline was something along the lines of it being the least effective legislative majority government in recent history, and it even pointed back to some previous minority Parliaments, saying they were more effective at getting legislation passed.

Then all of a sudden, in the final couple years of the last Parliament, it was almost like the Liberals forgot that Parliament even existed. There are a lot of examples I could get into that showed they truly show contempt for Canada's national democratic institutions. I will try to hold back on that front today, as we are working diligently to get this legislation passed. It is troubling that the trend seems to be continuing, and that the minister simply plays politics. The parliamentary secretary and members stand up and simply blame opposition members, because they want to speak to important issues, like Bill S-3. The Liberals are saying that if the opposition even wants to debate, then somehow it is holding up important legislative issues, delaying the process, and on and on with those sorts of excuses.

It is very troubling. This was prior to the pandemic, and I saw it first-hand. Shortly after being elected, I saw the way that the Liberals and previous minister responsible dealt with the new CUSMA, the renegotiated NAFTA. It was astounding to listen to the government trying to blame the opposition for its failures on a trade agreement that had true and significant impacts. That is one thing, but instead of taking responsibility, the Liberals blamed their political opponents, trying to pivot and explain it away. Instead of answering questions, they simply blamed delay, and we saw the poor outcomes that were the result.

It was before the pandemic that I started to see this trend as an elected parliamentarian. It is unfortunate that we saw it time and time again throughout the pandemic. The members opposite like to say how prorogation only lost a day and a half of Parliament, making these sorts of declarations, pointing to the legislative calendar. They know full well that the reality is very different. I could go into that, but I do want to get to the specifics of this debate on Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act.

When I first saw this bill introduced, specifically because it had to do with the energy industry, which is a personal interest of mine, I looked into it. I was surprised to see that this was an extension of transitional regulations that had been extended a number of times before. There is the need for certainty for workers, as has been pointed out quite a number of times throughout the course of the afternoon. Workers deserve certainty around the environment they are asked to work in.

One of the changes that took place, as was pointed out earlier, was the change from a 24-month extension to a 12-month extension.

I hope that the government is working proactively and not reactively. I hope we do not have to debate another bill like this come next fall, because the government was not able to get some of these agreements done on what is, admittedly, a very complex set of regulations that deal with provincial and federal jurisdiction and health and safety in a very challenging work environment. However, this is not to say that the bill speaks to the importance of time to ensure that there is respect for the stakeholders in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia to ensure that there is that fulsome and proper agreement.

I would note that the bill seems to anticipate that there would be delays, and we are debating it now close to the end of May. I anticipate that the bill will likely pass today, but it anticipated the fact that this probably would not get done and so it would make these transitional regulations retroactive to the end of last year where they had expired previously.

I would note, and a number of others have made some good points about this, that it is so important to respect our democratic institutions. Certainly, I do not think there is any question that all members of Parliament want to ensure that workers have a safe workplace. I do find it troubling that the government would take for granted the legislative process to the point where that would be forced to be written into legislation. I truly believe that had the government been more proactive, had it been more willing to work through the processes that evolved, we could have come to a much better agreement that would not have left that uncertainty that exists when it comes to the retroactivity and ensuring that there is no lapse, because workers certainly deserve that.

We see, as is often the case, that when workplace measures are brought into force, it is in the context of tragedy. Although I am not as familiar with the offshore industry as I am with the onshore in Alberta and Saskatchewan, I do believe that it is important to note a couple of the disasters that I have read about and learned more about since this debate came forward.

For example, there was the 1982 Ocean Ranger disaster when more than 80 people passed away and the tragedy associated with that, the 2009 Cougar Helicopters Flight 491 crash, and a number of other incidents where, tragically, Canadians have lost their lives. Closer to home, to translate some of these losses, I am aware of individuals who have lost their lives working in what is a challenging environment, the oil and gas sector. I will get into some of my experience with that in a moment.

Certainly, the demands to keep the lights on require risks. It is important to ensure that, as parliamentarians, we create the frameworks required for the certainty of those workers, the corporations and all those involved with the extraction of these resources to ensure that there is accountability, certainty and clarity as to how that works.

This brings me to the conclusion of some of the specifics on why I think Bill S-3 is so important and why I look forward to being able to support it. As mentioned by the previous speaker, the parliamentary secretary, the government is hopeful that it can complete these negotiations and have an agreement so that these transitional regulations are able to be replaced with permanent ones within the next year. I do hope that is the case, but there is part of me that is very pessimistic when I look at the history of this government.

I want to take advantage of the few minutes left of my time to talk about a number of things that are incredibly important for the context around this discussion.

I will start by simply saying this. I was made aware recently that a state employee pension fund had decided to divest itself of Canadian oil and gas shares. I had my staff look into that. Certainly, I was curious. That pension fund is entitled to do that, obviously. Its job is to ensure security for pensioners, but I had my staff look into the reasoning behind it. What I found was that this pension fund, under the guise of environmental protection and environmental social governance, was divesting itself of Canadian energy. The fund managers talked about it in the context of net zero by 2050. They wanted to ensure their fund was acting in a way that would encourage net zero by 2050.

Here is what was very troubling about that pension fund. When we looked a little bit more into some of the other holdings that fund has, there was hypocrisy. It has significant investments in oil and gas production in other parts of the world, and in companies that do not have nearly the same environmental record as Canadian companies that this pension fund had divested from, specifically. A number of these companies had even committed and laid out a specific framework saying how they would be at net zero going forward, yet the pension fund sold off its investments in those companies that were environmentally responsible. I would suggest that was largely because of a type of environmental activism that is more focused on image than on the reality that exists on the ground. On the other side, the fund was still invested in other corporations that are extracting oil and gas from other jurisdictions with no plan to get to net zero by 2050.

Canada's oil and gas sector is about 10% of Canada's GDP. It has contributed about half a trillion dollars directly to government coffers. About 500,000 Canadians have direct and indirect jobs from it. A lot of Canadians do not even realize how absolutely significant those indirect jobs are. Some of the vehicles produced at a factory in Ontario are being sold because of oil and gas. The buses at a factory in Quebec are being used, and large contracts are being given to oil sands producers. When it comes to the energy industry, including offshore, there is a lot of specific technology aiding in research and development, including the fact that energy can and should be a part of our green future. One of the most troubling realities is the hypocrisy in the conversation around oil and gas, and Canada's role in it. Canada can be the supplier of choice and I hope that we remain so.

I will wrap up my speech with some facts about Atlantic Canada's offshore oil and gas industry. More than 5,000 people are employed in it directly, and there are 600 supply and service companies. In the last two decades it has had cumulative expenditures of almost $70 billion, and more than $20 billion of cumulative royalties. These are industries worth supporting. These are industries worth fighting for. That includes ensuring that the workers have the protections that they need, which is what Bill S-3 is about.

Overall, I would urge parliamentarians to take seriously the reality, and the place that this sector and its workers have in Canada's present and Canada's future.

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

Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions for the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

First, has anything happened from December 31 of last year, when the regulations for offshore lapsed, to today that would give even one hour of delay to the government in producing the permanent regulations in the offshore that it has talked about it being important to pass this legislation for?

Second, I know the member is a new member of Parliament. Did he ever think that he would see a government allow regulations that provide for occupational health and safety, that provide for enforceable regulations for inspections and charges, if necessary, to lapse and no longer be in effect?

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

Madam Speaker, those are a good couple of questions, and I certainly appreciate serving on the public safety committee with the member.

I think that he brings up a good point: I have been astounded, since being elected, by the government's lack of management whether with the legislative timetable or simply the reactive nature that it takes to everything it does. The Liberals seem to be more worried about the present polling than they do about ensuring Canadians have good governance. That is troubling, because that does not result in the best interests of Canadians, and in this case Canadian workers, being respected.

With respect to some of the regulations, over the last five or six months thousands of oil and gas workers in Atlantic Canada have been going to work with uncertainty surrounding the regulations that are required in order for them to be protected in their workplaces. That is troubling, and it speaks to some of the challenges.

Although I have never worked in the oil and gas sector offshore, I spent close to 10 years driving a pressure truck in east-central Alberta's oil patch. It is how I paid for my college and university. There is a reality around sour oil and gas, the specifics around that, and having to deal with changes in regulations because of tragedy. There is no question that it is dangerous, both in terms of the immediate dangerous activities one has to do on a daily basis and also the longer-term effects that we are learning more about when it comes to chemicals and whatnot. I had a thankfully small workplace accident that resulted in some changes being made at the company that I worked for, in terms of practice, to ensure that sort of thing did not happen again, so I thank the member for his questions and his advocacy and for the opportunity to highlight some of the challenges that are faced because of the present circumstances we find ourselves in.

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

Mr. Speaker, I put my hand up at the last minute. I figured I would get one more question in and hear from my colleague. Could he elaborate just a little further on how vital health and safety regulations are, and how seriously the industry at large takes it? Obviously, he has experience working in the prairie regions in the oil and gas sector, but not so much offshore. Could he elaborate just a little further on that? I think it is extremely important to show just how serious it is, and why it is appalling that the government would take so long to actually move on something like this and wait until the last possible minute, even after the deal had expired, as the previous member who asked a question on this topic alluded to.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my friend and colleague just across the border. Certainly we have lived some of the realities of the economic benefits and impacts of the current government's management of the energy sector, specifically the cancellation of the KXL pipeline, which exclusively went through the constituencies of Cypress Hills—Grasslands and Battle River—Crowfoot to where it was to cross the border into the United States.

The member makes a really good point. The energy industry takes these things very seriously, and the government needs to ensure that there are strong regulations and that workers are protected. I saw first-hand, during the 10 years that I worked in the energy industry, some more lax regulations in the beginning, and in some cases tragedies. I believe there was an oil and gas worker from the member's constituency who tragically passed away because of exposure to sour gas that led to some pretty radical changes, to the point of workers needing to carrying SCBAs and additional testing equipment to ensure that other workers in similar situations would not be exposed to the same threat that led to the tragedy.

I go back further to my late grandfather who helped build one of the first gas facilities at Gooseberry Lake, in the region that I now have the honour of representing. My late grandfather, Felix Kurek, helped physically build it and was then hired to help run it. He spent his entire working career in the energy sector. I heard some of the stories from the early days: if a float on a tailings pond was stuck, they would simply dive in the tailings and go to the float. That was back in the sixties. Things have obviously changed. Now we have world-class environmental regulations and world-class safety regulations that have shown what can be accomplished when industry, government and workers have mutual respect and work together to accomplish something.

I would simply conclude with this. I think that speaks to why the energy industry is so important in this country. We lead the world. People care about where their food comes from, whether it is organic or not, and they care about whether their coffee is fair trade. They care about diamonds in their wedding bands. We need to be the supplier of choice. We can be the supplier of choice when it comes to energy and ensure that there is a strong mutual respect for workers, industry and the governments involved to encourage that development. That can be done. We have seen it done in the past in this country. I lament the fact that we are having some of these conversations today that would question that this can in fact be our future.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that the bill be carried unanimously.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member asked that the bill be carried unanimously and seeing no objections, I therefore declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:23 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Accordingly, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.