Debates of May 27th, 2021

Offshore Health and Safety Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several things I want to highlight today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have a few more points to share.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

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

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

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

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

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

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

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

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

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

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

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

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Resuming debate. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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