Debates of May 27th, 2021

Offshore Health and Safety Act

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

The hon. member for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will not apologize to that member.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a few minutes left, but I do not intend to use all of my time. We are agreeing, of course, to pass this legislation speedily today. We have been consulted on this for quite some time and have indicated our intention to support the bill, with speedy passage. However, we do want 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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