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 Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

RIDEAU HALL

THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNOR GENERAL

Thursday, June 3, 2021

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Richard Wagner, Administrator of the Government of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 3rd day of June, 2021, at 6:34 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ian McCowan

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill S-223, An Act respecting Kindness Week, Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act, and Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code (National Day for Truth and Reconciliation).

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

Let me add something, Mr. Chair, if you could indulge me for five seconds.

I appreciate the honourable member's kind words about Mr. Justice Wells, who was a great friend of mine. He was on the bench with my dad. Bob was a mentor to me. I appreciated his kind words yesterday in the debate on Bill S-3.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm pleased to join you from the island of Newfoundland—the ancestral homeland of the Mi'gmaw and Beothuk peoples.

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

It’s great to be back in front of this committee. I mean that, because I always enjoy my appearances here as part of the estimates cycle, and I recently appeared on Bill S-3, which we unanimously adopted at third reading yesterday in the House.

Since my last appearance on the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (C), the recovery has come along and regions are reopening. The natural resources sector is leading the recovery. Over half of Canadians have received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

I want to start my remarks talking about some of the significant developments in recent weeks, and even recent days, in energy. We are at a particular moment in time, I think a defining moment, one at which globally an increasing number of jurisdictions, countries and companies are charting their pathways to net zero.

The International Energy Agency recently issued a report called “Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector”, which I’m sure we will talk more about today. It is something Canada called on the IEA to do, and it is the first analysis that is compliant with limiting a rise in global temperature to 1.5°C. We asked it to conduct the report because we wanted to have a view, a highly technical view, of what the world needs to know and what the world would look like in order to get to net zero.

The climate and environment ministers of the G7, shortly after, met and agreed jointly to keep a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach by aiming to achieve net-zero emissions as soon as possible, by 2050 at the latest.

In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Dame Moya Greene issued a report on the future of this province, and it was an unflinching look at a dire financial situation. There is no sense in beating around the bush on that. There is a lot of hard work ahead of us and a lot of tough decisions, and a lot of that conversation is around energy.

On Wednesday of this week, there were three events, the reverberations of which are still being felt. People in the industry are still reeling about these. There was a landmark decision by a court in the Netherlands ordering Royal Dutch Shell to cut emissions by 45% by 2030. Shareholders of another major oil company, Chevron, backed a proposal by a convincing majority of 61% to cut its Scope 3 emissions, the emissions generated by customers' use of the products it sells. As well, ExxonMobil shareholders voted to install two new independent directors in what the Financial Times, economists and everybody are calling a clear rebuke of the company’s efforts, or lack thereof, to meaningfully address climate change to date.

What all of these events demonstrate is that the world is calling for increased climate ambition. The market is demanding it. Investors are demanding it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the market demands that businesses fight climate change.

Governments are taking action. Last month, at the global leadership summit, countries announced historic new climate ambitions. Forty countries—Canada among them—accounting for half of the world's economy, committed to act. We committed to lower emissions. Companies are taking action, some too slowly but some very decisively. On Wednesday, Suncor committed to net zero by 2050, actually increasing their ambition—real Canadian leadership. That's to match the mark set by Cenovus Energy earlier last year.

Yesterday, Canada's oldest oil and gas trade association announced a new name and a new brand and mandate. After 72 years, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors is now the Canadian Association of Energy Contractors, which just broadens their horizons, I think. It increases their ambition in looking at hydrogen, geothermal and CCUS. That is Canadian leadership right there. That is meeting the moment.

That's basically it. We can duck and run for cover, as some would have us do, stick our heads in the sand, avoid those tough conversations and ultimately leave Canadian workers and our proud industry behind, or we can lead by facing these challenges head-on with conviction and tenacity, leveraging that innate Canadian capacity, the capacity of our workers to use their ingenuity, their expertise, and their experience to meet Canada's challenges head-on. I choose the latter, as I have said before in this committee.

We have to define the moment we find ourselves in. We have to meet the challenges that this moment presents. Canadians, I think for the most part, understand that we need to choose the latter. Workers, I think, are choosing the latter.

This committee chooses the latter. You are studying the opportunities provided by the renewable and low-emission fuels industry. You have also studied opportunities in the critical minerals industry, in which Canada has a clear and distinct advantage. We have the opportunity to be a world leader.

You've studied the opportunities in forestry. On that point, I'd like to thank the committee for your good work on your recent report, “Economic Recovery in Canada's Forestry Sector: Green and Inclusive”. We are analyzing the recommendations and are working on a forthcoming response to it.

Budget 2021 chooses the latter. Four major investments put Natural Resources Canada at the centre of our green recovery.

$319 million over seven years to encourage an expansion of carbon capture, utilization and storage technologies.

$36.8 million over three years to advance critical battery mineral processing and refining expertise.

$9.6 million, also over three years, to create a critical battery minerals centre of excellence.

And finally, $1.5 billion over five years for the clean fuels fund to position Canada as a global leader in areas like hydrogen and biomass.

Mr. Chair, budget 2021 continues to build on the progress of our government over the past few years and the priorities that we're working on at Natural Resources Canada in the 2021-22 main estimates and the supplementary estimates (A), priorities that underpin our support for workers and our drive to lower emissions, and the steps on Canada's pathway to net zero, such as the $570 million in the main estimates for the emissions reduction fund. It is a fund that is working. There has been high uptake across streams.

We recently announced the first set of projects: 40 projects across Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and 16 projects in my province, in the Newfoundland offshore. These are real projects that are creating real jobs for workers, and they're under way right now to lower emissions.

The mains also include $84 million for last year and $309 million this fiscal year for greener homes. Yesterday we launched the Canada greener homes grant, so that Canadians can lower their energy bills and lower emissions. It's a program that drives economic activity. It creates jobs for energy advisers and local trades and for manufacturers of energy-efficient products such as windows, doors and solar panels.

The mains also provide $174.5 million in 2021-22 to support forestry diversifying and innovating, especially in the emerging bioeconomy, something which, again, I commend this committee for studying. There is funding for programs like the investments in forest industry transformation program and the forest innovation program, programs that this committee has heard at length about in terms of the positive impact across the country, programs that sustain jobs and increase the sector's competitiveness.

The supplementary estimates (A) further support forestry. There is a down payment there of $71.4 million for our two billion trees program to increase forest cover—an area 10 times the size of P.E.I. Trees are being planted this spring. I look forward to sharing more about this very soon.

The last program I'll highlight is on creating green jobs for Canada's youth. Supplementary estimates (A) include $43.9 million for our science and technology internship program, creating 1,500 green jobs for youth with a focus on indigenous and northern youth, jobs such as designing and implementing new wind energy systems, so that youth can lead and be a part of the net-zero solutions we need to build our low-emissions energy future.

Those are just some of the priorities we're working on. I don't have enough time in my opening remarks to speak to all of them.

As Minister of Natural Resources, I would say that every day I am constantly impressed by the drive of the officials and the staff at Natural Resources Canada. They are meeting the moment, I believe. They are ready to tackle the challenge. Some of them, as you know, are here alongside me today, as they always are.

There are challenges that we continue to face, such as those related to Line 5 and softwood lumber. We remain steadfast in our resolve to defend Canadian interests against these challenges.

But to leave off where I began—the moment we find ourselves in is a moment of opportunity for our country and for the workers who built this country.

No other democracy in the world has the natural resources that we do. We are the fourth-largest producer of oil and gas in the world, with the third-largest reserves. We are third in the world in hydroelectricity. We are one of only five tier-one nations for nuclear energy. We are a pacesetter in clean hydrogen and fuel-cell technologies. We are a supplier of choice for the minerals critical to powering a clean energy future. We are a top-ranked country for clean technology, including smart grids, storage technology and carbon capture.

We became all of those things not by sheer happenstance or coincidence. We became what we are because of the workers at the heart of these industries. These are proud, pragmatic, practical people who work in natural resources sectors right across the country. They don't avoid tough conversations or the challenges. They confront them head-on. They are leading, as are we. We have a common mission: net-zero emissions by 2050, a prosperous economy that continues to create jobs and a low-carbon future that leaves no one behind.

I am joined today by my officials: Jean-François Tremblay, deputy minister; Shirley Carruthers, assistant deputy minister, corporate management and services sector and our chief financial officer; Glenn Hargrove, assistant deputy minister, major projects management office and strategic petroleum policy and investment office; Mollie Johnson, assistant deputy minister, low carbon energy sector; Jeff Labonté, assistant deputy minister, lands and minerals sector; and Beth MacNeil, assistant deputy minister, Canadian Forest Service.

One last word: I am proud to have appeared before this committee three times over the past four months. I am proud of the constructive relationships I have with my opposition critics—Greg, Mario, Richard—as well as other members of this committee. We hardly agree, nor should we. We all have jobs to do, but I do believe that constructive relationships are how we best serve Canadians. It's how we tackle the challenges that we face. I look forward to continuing this important work.

With that, I welcome your questions.

I thank you for your attention.

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[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.

[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 weatherbeaten 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.

[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 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 the government's failure in not properly bringing this legislation before the House in a timely fashion.

[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.

[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 decomissioning 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.

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.

Business of the House

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my kind colleague for his important question.

This afternoon, we will begin report stage and third reading of Bill S-3, regarding offshore health and safety. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-21, on the Firearms Act.

On Monday, we will resume third reading stage of Bill C-6, on conversion therapy. That evening, we will consider in committee of the whole the main estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development.

On Wednesday, we will consider Bill C-22, on criminal justice reforms, at second reading.

Tuesday and Thursday will be allotted days.

Once again, I thank my colleague for his very important question and wish him a great afternoon.

Natural Resources

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources in relation to Bill S-3, an act to amend the Offshore Health and Safety Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendment.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We're pleased to have you back with us, Minister.

We had also discussed Bill S-3. I had assured you that I had no objection and would not do anything to prevent the bill from moving forward expeditiously. I believe things should go smoothly.

Since everyone seems to be cooperative, I hope that you will allow me to ask you a question about the energy sector.

In your address, you spoke more broadly about the energy sector. I'd like to raise a concern I have about the hydrogen strategy you are currently deploying. I am specifically referring to grey hydrogen. I don't think it should be part of a green shift.

Before implementing this strategy, I believe that it would be important for you to give consideration to the relationship between hydrogen production and what it means in terms of carbon. I don't know if you've been made aware of that.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Wonderful.

The oil and gas industry, as you indicated, Minister, is definitely one of the priority industries, if not “the” priority, for the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It sometimes seems like we're constantly competing in this industry with our western counterparts. I have to acknowledge the fact that you've certainly moved the dial on that and ensured that attention was being focused on the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Of course, as MP Harris outlined earlier when Ms. Johnson was on, I think we all have a history in this industry in the province, and have all, at one point, had our hand in different policies and regulation pieces around it. Maybe you could talk a little bit about how Bill S-3 will affect workers in this province into the future, and how important it is for a province like Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone.

I’m addressing this committee from my home on the island of Newfoundland—the ancestral homeland of the Mi’kmaq and Beothuk Peoples.

Not only that, it's also one of Canada's three proud oil-producing provinces.

I want to thank members for supporting our request to expedite the passage of this important legislation.

This issue is important to me. It's personal. It's about an industry that has brought so many benefits to my province. It impacts the workers here—my neighbours, my friends—who work in our offshore. I remember vividly the industry's nascent days. I was a young fellow working for Premier Brian Tobin some 20-odd years ago when the first platform, Hibernia, was under construction. Hopes were sky-high after so much despair about the cod fishery collapse in 1992. Today, it is a proud and mature industry, one that has accounted over the years for 30% of our economy, one out of every 10 jobs and 10% of employment. In fact, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador relies more on its royalties from oil than even the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

The opening of the offshore industry in the Atlantic has created jobs and wealth for Nova Scotians, too, prior to and during the recent decommissioning of its two gas projects.

This, right now, is about the health and safety of the workers who built those great projects. This is about protecting them.

When I spoke about Bill S-3 to members of the Senate in February, I was struck by a remark from Nova Scotia Senator Jane Cordy. She said that when you live on the ocean, you understand the strength of the ocean.

The power of the sea is by no means lost on many of us. The president of ExxonMobil Canada told me that there is no harsher environment on the planet in which his company operates than Newfoundland's offshore.

The sea is powerful. That power also has tragic consequences. Two tragedies stand out for me. The first is the sinking of the Ocean Ranger, when all 84 on board perished during a terrible North Atlantic winter storm in 1982. I remember delivering the newspaper the next day and the size of that headline.

A royal commission led to new safety measures then; yet in 2009, tragedy struck again. A helicopter ferrying 18 workers to an offshore platform plunged into the ocean and only one—miraculously—survived. A judicial inquiry was struck that led to the passage in 2014 of the Offshore Health and Safety Act. The government of the day set up an interim safety regime, while giving officials five years to finalize permanent regulations. That deadline was extended by two years, and now we're asking for a new extension that would give us until the end of this calendar year to complete this work.

I know some members are ready to scream and shout “failure” over these delays, and frustration. I will tell you that it is warranted and shared. I'm frustrated. I said so during the Senate hearings and I'll repeat it again today: It should not have taken this long.

Consider this. One of our officials told senators that the original five-year schedule was ambitious, even if everything went like clockwork, because this is a complex process. We're talking about three governments and two independent regulatory bodies. This is how our offshore works. It's a joint management framework. The Atlantic Accord act clearly outlines areas of responsibility and stipulates decisions that require joint ratification. Therefore, you can't go it alone.

In addition, we've undertaken broad consultations with stakeholders, including industry—especially unions—all needing to find common ground on regulations filling some 300 pages. These regulations incorporate, by reference, 173 domestic and international standards, which are contained in documents totalling more than 15,000 pages.

Then it had to be put into legal language, in both languages. Toss in elections, a pandemic and a major interruption in 2017 when officials fixed parts of the 2014 interim regulations that were causing problems for the industry. All of that set us back.

Now, some will criticize these delays, and that is fair. Some of you may say that we can't blame the pandemic for all of this, and that is true to a certain extent. However, think of how long it took this committee, and how long it took Parliament, to figure out how to function in a pandemic.

All of our technical advisers at the federal and provincial levels, with their respective occupational health and safety departments, have been on the front lines of the COVID response.

However, it is misleading to say that this government doesn't care about workers. I mean, nothing could be further from the truth. These are my neighbours. These are the people who have built our province into what it is. Workers are at the heart of everything that we do here.

We're finalizing a world-class safety regime, and at the same time supporting an industry still hurting due to the pandemic and brutal 2020 oil market conditions. The reality is that not since the time of Brian Mulroney and John Crosbie has there been more done for the offshore by a federal government—by this government.

In 2019, $2.5 billion went to Newfoundland and Labrador as part of the renewed Atlantic Accord agreement. There has been close to $400 million to support workers and to lower emissions in the offshore during a pandemic. What industry has been asking us for years, we have done: reducing the time for exploratory drilling assessments from over 900 days to 90 days, without losing an inch of environmental integrity.

Just last week, I announced 16 projects funded through the offshore component of the emissions reduction fund. These are projects that can use carbon capture, that use wind and other renewable sources of energy that could power the industry's operations, projects that will lower emissions. In the face of challenges, we've had our workers' backs, and we continue to have their backs to protect them.

Mr. Chair, I am proud, as a son of Newfoundland and Labrador, of what we have achieved since this industry 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.

We must protect these workers. The best way? By adopting a world-class security regime. I believe in it and I support it.

Bill S-3 will go a long way. I urge you to also support it.

I’m joined here today by my officials: Glenn Hargrove, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Petroleum Policy and Investment Office; and Tim Gardiner, Senior Director, Offshore Petroleum Management, Strategic Petroleum Policy and Investment Office.

I’m pleased now to take questions.

Thank you very much.

[Dave Mercer]

Okay.

We therefore agree with Senator David Wells that to allow the transitional regulations to lapse at the end of 2020 has been a dereliction of duty by the current federal government, which has had six years to develop and implement permanent regulations. This is particularly the case in light of the tragedies that offshore workers have experienced in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador due to the absence of sufficient health and safety regulations in the past.

All of you are probably familiar with the collective trauma experienced with our communities after disasters such as the Ocean Ranger and Cougar Flight 491 Well, today we're right back where we started. Our members in the offshore sector have worked within a regulatory void for over four months with no occupational health and safety regulations to protect them.

While we understand this is a complicated process to implement permanent regulations, the offshore industry has advanced far beyond where it was in 2014, and it is more important than ever to have updated regulations in place to protect our members. Six years is more than enough time. I'm glad to see that the Senate amended the bill to reflect the idea. This should be the final extension for the deadline, and permanent regulations should be in place by the end of the year. Unifor also supports the requirement that the Department of Natural Resources submit a progress report to the Senate by June 15 outlining a clear implementation schedule.

I urge Parliament to pass Bill S-3 as soon as possible so that the transitional regulations are revived, even if only until the end of the year while permanent regulations are being sorted out. Our members in the offshore industry work in a unique environment with significant safety challenges, and many workers had to lose their lives for the health and safety regulations to get to where they are today.

However, I'll also ask the government to do more to investigate how these regulations can be strengthened as part of the development of permanent regulations to ensure that companies cannot simply shirk their responsibility to conduct preventive maintenance and repairs by pausing operations as they have done during the COVID-19 crisis. In March, Unifor submitted detailed recommendations to strengthen these regulations as part of the stakeholder consultations. Unifor believes that solutions to health and safety issues are best resolved with full participation of workers' health and safety representatives of the joint health and safety committees in all workplace activities related to occupational health and safety. Workers have a right to know about hazards in the workplace. They have a right to fully participate in workplace health and safety, and of course, workers always have the right to refuse.

Because offshore work is so remote, workers are not always protected by the intersection of workplace occupational health and safety inspectors who may be hours or days away. The offshore workplace is one where the internal responsibility system, or IRS, must be strong. We believe that the amendments we are proposing to the regulation enhance the IRS by giving the workplace joint health and occupational...and the worker representatives more tools to work with helping employers solve sometimes very complex safety issues while protecting—