Robert Chisholm

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do remember that tragic incident in 1999. As the member said, no one was charged.

I was there in the legislature in 1992 when 26 miners died as a result of the explosion underground in the Westray tragedy. I was the labour critic in the NDP caucus in those days, and I sat down literally hours after that disaster with families in Stellarton and heard the stories and felt the grief. I sat through days, weeks, months, and years of investigations, of reviews, of debate, and we never did, as far as I was concerned, the legislation that we require to properly hold officials accountable for enforcing health and safety laws. There are the three Rs, in terms of the responsibility that both the employer and the employees have to have, but we were never able to hold the proper authorities accountable in that case.

It was the same thing in the case of the Nordic Apollo.

We have always said that government should have a dedicated prosecutor for health and safety. We need to make sure the legislation holds people accountable so that they will be charged.

There was a Westray bill that passed in the House, which dealt with corporate responsibility. It was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the former leader of the NDP in the House, Alexa McDonough, and that is a start; but still nobody has been charged under that legislation. It takes commitment by government to make sure people are held accountable.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. The issues around health and safety in the workplace and otherwise are very important to that member. He does great work in his constituency on behalf of working people. He is right that safety is a big deal in the maritime environment. Fishing is one of the most dangerous businesses there is. Back in the late winter, five fishermen died in Nova Scotia when their vessel went down in a storm in the southwest just off the Liverpool area. They were out fishing for halibut. It is a dangerous industry.

We need to do more. I have talked with my friends and people within the industry about what we can do to make sure the people who toil in that industry are safer. It is a collaboration that needs to happen. Government needs to take some leadership on this issue to make sure there are rules and they are enforced. It is all well and good to establish the greatest workplace rules, but if we do not enforce them and hold people accountable then they will end up not doing their job.

We have only gone part way. That is why in this case we had hoped the government would also move forward with an independent regulator who people could deal with and speak to and who would help implement good safety and health laws on the offshore.

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to stand and speak for a few moments on Bill C-5, an act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and other acts and to provide for certain other measures. This is a piece of legislation that exists as a result of negotiations that have been going on for literally 12 years between the federal government, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia. It mirrors legislation that has already been passed in both of those provincial legislatures, so we will not be amending it here. If we were to do so, it would mean that they would have to go back to the drawing board.

Bill C-5 is an attempt to strengthen offshore health and safety practices in the oil and gas industry, which have been separated and left to regulation. That is a problem that I have certainly seen with other legislation. In my former jurisdiction of Nova Scotia, the government for 20 years did the same thing with the Trade Union Act, on the one hand, and with health and safety legislation on the other. What we found out, certainly in the case of health and safety legislation, was that it was not good enough to do it all by regulation. We had to make sure that the rules of the road, the principles, were properly articulated. The regulations would be there to make sure that those principles were carried forward.

It is good to see that the three governments involved here see that this is important to have done. Therefore, we will be supporting the bill at second reading.

The bill would put the practice into legislation based on three basic principles. Number one is that offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protection that is at least as good as what exists for onshore workers. This is a situation that has existed for far too many years and is finally being addressed here. Number two is the protection of employee rights; that is, to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal will be covered in the bill. Number three is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibility in the workplace.

We support this legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction for offshore safety, but more work still needs to be done. We hope that the federal government continues to work with the provinces to strengthen offshore safety regulations and that an independent stand-alone safety regulator is created for the future. That last point is something that came out of the Wells commission that recommended that a stand-alone regulator be put in place. It was something that was not agreed to by the parties and therefore does not exist. We think it is very important. I am going to speak a little more about that here this afternoon.

As usual, a bill like this comes to the floor of the legislature as a result of hard lessons, and in this case, lessons learned from years of offshore tragedies.

It has been more than 30 years since Canada's worse offshore disaster. In 1982, 84 people were killed when the drill rig Ocean Ranger sank off Newfoundland. A royal commission was subsequently convened in 1984, and that commission criticized the industry for poor safety training and equipment and lax inspections.

I want to take a moment to read a section from a book that was written by a good friend of mine, someone who lost her brother in that disaster back in 1982.

Susan Dodd wrote an exceptional piece of work called The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, which not only talks about that disaster, what led to it, what resulted from it, and the devastation it caused to the families involved but very much documents the problems that resulted as a consequence of legislators not paying attention. It was a result, frankly, of the power of the oil and gas sector to basically have its way and go about its business and of governments saying, “Thank you very much. We'll take some royalty revenue from you, but we'll try not to get in your way”.

I want to read, if I may, a passage from the book, which I think underlines why it is so important that we not only pay attention to the bill but that we also think about the role we play here as legislators to ensure that we do everything in our power to provide the laws, the regulations, the rules of the road, and the protections that would ensure that people living and working in this country and for this country are safe.

Let me quote:

The shock of the Ocean Ranger disaster was not that oil production was dangerous, but rather the realization that governments had betrayed people's faith. People trusted governments to use reasonable regulation to mitigate the risks of oil jobs. That trust was misplaced. There were no provincial safety regulations in the Newfoundland offshore when my brother and his eighty-three co-workers died.... Time and again, publics trust governments to ensure that companies operate with reasonable prudence. Time and again we are shocked by a new disaster caused by corporate negligence. We say we will “never forget.”

We do it all the time in this House.

Then we forget. And then it happens again.

The author goes on to talk about the fact that the most recent example is 2010, when the Deepwater Horizon disaster killed 11 workers and injured 17 more, resulting in the worst U.S. marine oil spill in history.

It is a fascinating book. I urge all members, or anyone interested, to take a look at it. Again, it is The Ocean Ranger, Remaking the Promise of Oil, and the author is Susan Dodd.

It is particularly important for those of us living on the coast, and in my case, living on the east coast. We know that Shell has invested over $1 billion to further explore an oil field off our coast. BP, in another area offshore, is further investing nearly $1 billion in exploring a similar development.

In other words, we cannot pretend that it is not coming again, that we are not going to be out there again. There are rigs out there off Newfoundland. We know that there are drilling rigs and exploratory rigs out there. There is equipment moving around our coast. We need to make sure that the people working in our offshore and the people servicing the offshore are provided with the necessary protections to ensure that these kinds of disasters do not happen again. It is important that we do that now.

I should say, of course, that a more recent review of offshore safety came in 2009, after the crash of Cougar Flight 91, which killed 17 people. The Wells inquiry into the Cougar crash made a number of recommendations, most notably the creation of an autonomous and dedicated safety regulator, which is not included.

My colleague, the member for St. John's East, raised a question in the House today about a recommendation that has gone before transport to ensure that airplanes and helicopters are able to operate an hour after they no longer have any oil or have run dry. It is an important safety measure that would have ensured that the disaster I referred to, Cougar Flight 91, did not happen. We continue to ask the government questions about why it is that it is unwilling to introduce that particular requirement for the offshore.

While I am disappointed, as others on this side have said, that this bill does not call for an independent safety regulator, I believe that it is a step in the right direction.

Again, it implements many of the principles of occupational health and safety. As I have said, offshore occupational health and safety laws must provide workers with protections that are at least as good as those that exist for onshore workers. The protection of employee rights to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal needs to be included.

That is an issue that has been raised in this session of the House in relation to Bill C-4, the omnibus budget bill. In there are changes that lessen the responsibilities of health and safety inspectors. We are concerned about the implications those changes would have on Bill C-5. As I said, this bill talks about setting up a balance between health and safety protections onshore and offshore and about providing clear protection of the rights of employees to know, to participate, to refuse, and to be protected from reprisal. We are concerned that the omnibus budget bill, in fact, lessens those rights in federal jurisdictions and therefore may have some implications here. I understand that in a recent briefing on this bill, we were unable to get answers to those particular questions, but we will continue to ask.

Finally is support for an occupational health and safety culture that recognizes the shared responsibilities in the workplace.

As I have suggested to members, we will continue to see further exploration, further development of natural resources, off our coasts. We need to make sure that we provide the environmental protections necessary, if we are going to go forward, to ensure that no problems exist and that no problems are created that endanger our natural resources, coastlines, industries, fisheries, environment, marine life, or oceans. It is an issue that has come up on the east coast and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence.

We know that the issue of the development of the Old Harry site is a controversial one. It is controversial for reasons like this. We must make sure that we have protections in place for the people who work on any particular drill site and that the environmental protections are in place before any company is allowed to proceed with any development.

In the Gulf, as we have heard in this House, if there is an oil spill, God forbid, it takes upward of a year for the Gulf of St. Lawrence to empty and the water to cycle around. It would be absolutely devastating to Quebec, New Brunswick, the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and, of course, to the waters that flow into and out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. It is important that we pay attention to how we are moving forward and ensure that all of our laws are properly constructed to cover any potential problems that may exist.

This is a situation where laws are just now catching up with a disaster that happened 30 years ago, in which 84 people lost their lives. We have to be able to respond more quickly. We have to make sure we can look forward and learn from what is happening in other jurisdictions. Let us not wait until the worst case scenario actually presents itself, and let us bring legislation forward to prevent the kinds of disasters we have talked about, which happened in the past and are happening in other jurisdictions.

That is why we need to move forward and work closely with the provinces, in this case Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. On another offshore related issue, the Province of Nova Scotia has extended a moratorium against oil and natural gas development in Georges Bank. That area was determined to be extraordinarily vulnerable, a very sensitive ecosystem, very much a nursery for the fishery throughout the east coast. It has been determined in the past by both the federal and provincial governments working together that we needed to prevent any industrial development in that area of the ocean.

As well, the Province of Nova Scotia has passed legislation to make sure that will not happen, but the federal government, this time, has failed to work with the Province of Nova Scotia. We will continue to push the government on that question. The moratorium must be extended to protect the industry that now exists, the fishery, to protect the ecosystem, to protect our oceans and to protect our environment throughout the east coast.

Again, that is another part of the legislative framework that needs to be put in place to ensure that, as developments continue to move forward, we have the protections in place to ensure that damage is not done to what already exists and what might exist well into the future.

Both BP and Shell Oil are set to conduct new deepwater oil exploration off Nova Scotia for the first time since 2005. We believe that our workers deserve nothing less than to feel safe not only in their workplaces but, in the case of the offshore industry, in transit to the workplace as well.

I hope the government will continue to work with the provinces involved to make sure that offshore safety regulations are strengthened and that we can avoid offshore tragedies like Cougar flight 91, the BP spill in the Gulf, and the Ocean Ranger disaster.

It was a pleasure to participate in this debate. I look forward to any questions.

[Employment Insurance, November 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are making a mess of EI. Even a right-wing report released yesterday accused the Conservatives of using EI as a cash cow.

Just like the Liberals before them, the Conservatives simply do not get it: EI belongs to the people who paid for it. Now people are waiting longer, fewer than ever qualify, and those who do are being forced into lower-paying jobs.

When will the Conservatives stop attacking EI and start helping unemployed Canadians get back on their feet?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct. The establishment of this or any site needs to be done in consultation with the community and the individuals involved.

The bottom line is that the facts will speak for themselves, on this and any other matter. It cannot be that the biases and prejudices of people within a community are allowed to prevent any other Canadian from exercising his or her right to life and liberty. That is what the Supreme Court has said.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am not in the least opposed to community views. In fact, what we have seen as a result of the 30-plus peer-reviewed studies of communities like Vancouver East, and other communities around the world, is that these programs work at making communities safer.

The point, though, is that the bill would turn the onus of responsibility on its head. Whereas the Supreme Court of Canada has said that when the evidence presents the fact that this is of value and that the values of safety and health are balanced, then it is up to the community to prove that it would not provide that balance of safety and health.

My concern with the authority that would be given to the minister in the bill is that it would make it that much more difficult for the applicants to achieve the bar that she would set.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak for a few moments to Bill C-2. I have listened to my colleagues most of the day, and they have presented some very personal explanations and descriptions of why the government needs to rethink Bill C-2.

Bill C-2 deals with a public health issue. We believe that decisions about programs that may benefit public health must be based on fact. That is at the heart of this issue. All Canadians, regardless, must have the opportunity to gain the benefit of those programs.

This all stems from a program called InSite. It was opened as part of a public health plan by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and its community partners following a 12-fold increase in overdose death in Vancouver between 1987 and 1993. As a result of the efforts of this site, there was a 35% decrease in overdose deaths. Furthermore, InSite has been shown to decrease crime, communicable diseases, infection rates, and relapse rates for drug users.

In 2008, the government began to take action to close InSite. It took action in British Columbia. The minister of health at that time denied InSite's application to renew an exemption that existed under section 56. The B.C. Supreme Court ruled that InSite should be granted a new extension. The federal government then took it to the B.C. Court of Appeal, which ruled again that InSite should remain open. In 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the minister's decision to close InSite violated its patrons' charter rights and that the minister's decision was “arbitrary, undermining the very purposes of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act”, which includes public health and safety.

The decision by the Supreme Court hinges on section 7 of the charter, which says that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

The court found that section 56 exemptions must be granted where they decreased the risk of death and disease and there was little or no evidence that it would have a negative impact on public safety.

I have heard members opposite say that if we poll our community and our community decides that it does not want to have that facility, then why should it have to have it there? The Supreme Court of Canada actually dealt with that question by saying that the government was not able to show that it undermined public safety and, in some instances, had proven to promote it.

We have heard members talk about the problems that result in the injection of drugs in areas that are not safe, with contaminated needles on the ground in parks and with people being exposed to those kinds of health risks. It reduces those health and safety hazards, reduces public drug injections, reduces violence associated with drugs, and reduces drug-related litter.

This is key. Safe injection sites, therefore, strike the balance between public health and public safety. They connect people in dire need of assistance to needed health services such as primary care and addiction treatment.

The point here is this. How do we deliver the services that Canadians need to make them safe? How do we ensure that our communities are safe and healthy? We need to base that not only on facts but on the understanding that every Canadian, every human being in this country, has the right to live life and to liberty and to have access to life-saving drugs and programs.

In relation to further exemptions for additional programs, this is what the Supreme Court said. It directed the following:

...the Minister must exercise that discretion within the constraints imposed by the law and the Charter, aiming to strike the appropriate balance between achieving public health and public safety. In accordance with the Charter, the Minister must consider whether denying an exemption would cause deprivations of life and security of the person that are not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Where, as here, [referring to InSite] a supervised injection site will decrease the risk of death and disease, and there is little or no evidence that it will have a negative impact on public safety, the Minister should generally grant an exemption.

What we have in Bill C-2 is something completely different. It ignores the direction that was provided by the Supreme Court of Canada. It has been cited by my colleague, who knows much of the constitutional law in this country. Bill C-2 will probably be deemed unconstitutional, which does not seem to bother members opposite. The point is that it not only flies in the face of the recommendations of the direction provided by the Supreme Court decision but goes against the spirit, I would suggest, of what makes us Canadian, what makes us special in the world in our ability to be generous and humane and to show compassion to our sisters and brothers regardless of their circumstances.

If we determine, as has been determined in the case of InSite, that in fact this program saves lives, reduces crime and ensures that the public is safer, then these are the types of programs that we need to make available to people. Some have suggested that New Democrats do not care about addictions, that we just want to make sure people get the opportunity to shoot up. We want to make sure that Canadians are made safe and healthy. This is the safe part and the healthy part is the supervision. Now we have to make sure that the government opposite backs up its words about commitment to addiction to ensure there is follow-up, that there are beds in detox programs and other addiction-related programs, and that there is the support to allow people, when they are ready and able, to kick whatever their addiction is, to turn their lives around and to be more healthy for themselves, their families and communities.

This is fundamental. It is a fundamental principle that has been outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the government is ignoring it. Bill C-2 flies in the face of this principle. The government is going to be told again, as it was in 2008 by the Supreme Court, the B.C. Supreme Court, and the B.C. appeal court, and again in 2011 by the Supreme Court of Canada, that it is on the wrong track, pitting one type of Canadian against another type of Canadian.

We are all Canadians. The Supreme Court will protect that to ensure that this kind of discrimination is not allowed to happen.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate my colleague on his intervention. It was a balanced and thoughtful presentation.

I want to pick up on this point. He talked about the fact that there are members of our society who are not being served by programs that now exist to provide services to Canadians. He talked about people in health care receiving services from nurses who are volunteering their services and receiving donated drugs and so on in order to keep them alive. He speaks very much to the generosity of spirit of many Canadians.

Would the member agree that some of the suggestions made by members opposite as they relate to this particular group of Canadians, who the Supreme Court says have rights, and the way the government is responding to this very much show a lack of generosity toward these Canadians?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite from Alberta, and it made me shake my head. Members opposite are in a hurry to ship out our natural resources without adding any value to them whatsoever. The problem is what is happening right now in Alberta. Alberta is running a $2 billion or $3 billion deficit right now as a result of the lack of revenue from its resources as the world market changes.

New Democrats have suggested that what we should be doing with our resources, in this case bitumen, is processing them in Canada. There are 40,000 jobs expected to be created as a result of that pipeline. Instead of sending it across the border and creating 40,000 jobs there, and I have nothing against my American friends, we would like some long-term jobs here.

I ask the member why it is he would not like to ensure that 40,000 families sustain long-term jobs here in Canada.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to expand a little on this point.

Clearly, the government opposite does not care about the 40,000 jobs in processing bitumen, nor does the Liberal opposition care about that. My concern is that the leader of the Liberal Party, when he was in Washington last week, dismissed environmental concerns that have been expressed by Americans and Canadians. Now we learn that the Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre does not want to participate in a debate on climate change.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on what this says about the commitment of both the Liberals and Conservatives on these important issues.