Evidence of meeting #8 for Natural Resources in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
I'm sorry to interrupt, sir. I just have to correct you on one thing.
Premier Dunderdale of Newfoundland and Labrador was pretty straightforward in coming out and saying that she agrees with recommendation 29 insofar as the creation of an independent safety regulator is concerned. She's been clear about that.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
Okay, I would defer to your statement on that particular point.
But I would certainly address the question you had about the three aspects of the board's responsibilities.
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
What I'd rather you get to is why the federal government has failed to date to follow through on that particular recommendation from the Wells inquiry report.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I think we've been looking at all of the aspects of the recommendation, and the report in and of itself. There was the Hickman report, which preceded that one and actually suggested that the strength of the regulator was really important to continue. There are different models around the world, and some have different approaches—
NDP
Ryan Cleary NDP St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL
Again, Justice Wells said that the most important recommendation was number 29, specifically with regard to the independent safety regulator. How come the federal government has failed to move on that specifically?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
You're out of time, Mr. Cleary, so could we have a very short response?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I'd like to say that we continue to look at recommendation 29 in the broader context of these amendments and other aspects of the offshore and in the context in which the recommendations are put forward. We continue to have those discussions with officials in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we will continue to do so.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Leon Benoit
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Cleary.
Mr. Regan, you have up to seven minutes. Go ahead, please.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.
Clause 45 of the bill before us inserts, among other things, a new section 205.001, which in paragraph 205.001(3)(a) gives regulatory-making powers to the Governor in Council to make regulations, for example, defining “danger”. Amendments proposed, I gather, in the other bill that's related to this, Bill C-4, would amend the definition of “danger” as defined in the Canada Labour Code. In relation to this bill, is it the intention that the definition of “danger” for the purposes of the offshore accords will match the definition as proposed by Bill C-4?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
I'll defer to my colleague from Justice who would be able to speak to the issue of the reference.
Anne-Marie Fortin Counsel, Department of Natural Resources
When the bill was drafted, there were some issues identified by our colleagues at Labour Canada, the labour program, with regard to the definition as it stood then in the Canada Labour Code. At one point we contemplated importing the definition that existed then. We discussed and negotiated with the provinces, subject to the advice of the boards. I don't know if the labour program at that time furthered its intention to table Bill C-4, and maybe they will want to follow up on my answer, but definitely we knew there was an issue with the definition of “danger” that needed to be addressed, but we were not comfortable in not giving the power to the Governor in Council to address the issue at a later date, once there was further thought into the definition.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I guess my concern is that the government could define “danger” and change the definition of “danger” with absolutely no consultation with employers and employees or experts, as I'm told was done in relation to the changes in Bill C-5 to the definition. I don't know if Ms. Baxter can clarify this and talk about the consultations that took place for redefining “danger” in Bill C-4 and tell us what the plan is in relation to Bill C-5.
Really, is the government planning to do consultations on this?
Brenda Baxter Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
I can't speak to the consultation process with respect to Bill C-5. My colleagues would have to speak to that.
With regard to the changes that are included from the consequential amendments to the Canada Labour Code, in this act they touch on the issues of information sharing. They touch on the issues of timelines for prosecutions, as well as ministerial permission to appear before a civil or administrative proceeding. Those are the specific changes.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I'm confused and a bit baffled. Maybe someone can clarify this. You have provisions that would give the Governor in Council the power to redefine “danger” in this bill before us today. Is no one here able to speak to the question of consultation on that question? My understanding is that when Bill C-4 was before the committees in both the House and the Senate, it became clear that there had been no consultations with the employees, the unions, of the employer groups.
The question is, what's the basis for this? Does the government plan to have consultation, since it doesn't appear to have done so thus far?
Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I presume you're going to have the same definition for both, but maybe you can tell me that. If you're changing the definition for both, then I'm concerned about whether or not there has been consultation.
Director General, Workplace Directorate, Labour Program, Department of Human Resources and Skills Development
Bill C-5 speaks to provisions under the proposed amendments under the Canada Labour Code. This is with respect to the offshore accord act, which is a separate piece of legislation.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Yes, but are you planning to use the same definition in both, because that's my understanding; but either way, will you consult employees and employer groups before proceeding with that?
Counsel, Department of Natural Resources
I don't think the decision has been made as to whether a definition would be adopted by regulation or whether it would be the same, but definitely no regulation can go forward without having consulted with the province and obtained their consent. There would be a mandatory prepublication. I do believe there are some consultation processes for all the regulations that are done for the offshore area.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
There is the requirement in the two pieces of legislation to ensure consistency between them.
The question of the consultation would be should the government invoke the authority to make regulations if there is a requirement for there to be consultation through the Canada Gazette process, which we recognize would occur. Certainly in this instance, given the mirror legislation we spoke to earlier, there's a natural, if you will, consultation dialogue that happens with both of the provincial governments involved currently, and potentially in the future with the Province of Quebec.
I recognize your point of the need for consistency, and certainly in this particular case the authority here requires that consultation would take place.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
I gather on the other bill in relation to the definition of “danger” there has been testimony that the current definition is very ambiguous, and the proposed one is aligned with case law, and yet there are some things in the current definition that are very clear, very explicit. For example, it says “and includes any exposure to a hazardous substance that is likely to result in a chronic illness, in disease or in damage to the reproductive system”.
I guess if your plan is to take those out, surely a court would assume you have a reason for changing the wording and for taking things out. I'm wondering what kind of background there has been to try to assess what the impact of that would be, of removing words of that sort.
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
You're talking about Bill C-4.
Liberal
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
The point is, if you're making changes to the definition of “danger”, where is it going to end in relation to both bills, particularly this one?
Director General, Energy Safety and Security Branch, Department of Natural Resources
This bill seeks authority to be able to potentially change the definition of “danger”. Clearly that will have to be consistent with the amendments proposed for the Canada Labour Code under Bill C-4, but I'm not an expert in that particular set of amendments.
The question of how one exercises that authority is expressed in the bill, which is that it will go through a regulation-making phase or a step, that it would be provided for comment and consultation.