Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands)
2021-04-30 12:27 [p.6476]
Mr. Speaker, I share some of the rage with the hon. member for St. John’s East on this matter. I can remember the Ocean Ranger going down in 1982 with the loss of lives of 84 people, but more recently, the helicopter crash that took place, the Cougar flight 491. Let us all pause for a moment in memory of all those lives lost through the negligence of the regulations and the safety of the offshore and the Newfoundland and Labrador workers who go to work in the offshore. The Cougar flight crash in 2009 led to an inquiry. Mr. Justice Wells made specific recommendations. Yes, we have to get this passed, otherwise as the leader of the Unifor said, it is a #epicfail.

In the meantime, where is the independent safety regulator for our offshore? There is one in the U.S., U.K., Norway and Australia. Why is the government ignoring the recommendations from the safety inquiry of Justice Wells?

Marc Serré (Nickel Belt)
2021-04-30 12:28 [p.6477]
Mr. Speaker, with the tragedies that have occurred offshore on the rigs, it is really important that we do this. We are getting Bill S-3 done and are getting it right. We are making sure that the safety regulations and labour codes will make sure that we get this right.
We are continuing from the framework of 2014, and we have to make sure that it is implemented in the right way. We will continue to look at other ways to protect the health and safety of our workers. It is important that we look to do this by December 2021.

The post Where is the independent safety regulator for our offshore? appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The “skies” part of this legislation deals with some administrative matters related to the investigation of air crashes. The “seas” part of this legislation deals with international treaties Canada has signed onto for some time for liability in the event of oil spills. Nothing about either is safeguarding anything.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he would comment on what a proper safeguarding our seas and skies act might contain.

Kennedy Stewart: Mr. Speaker, if the government was doing the correct thing, it would allow Canadians a proper say not just on expanding or building facilities but on a whole review of how it deals with the expanding oil and gas sectors in this country. The public, in general, is shut out, and of course, the government has to have meaningful consultations with first nations, which it is totally disregarding. In fact, this is causing all kinds of strife within British Columbia. It is very alarming, and in the long run, will not serve the country well.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

This bill is not about safeguarding our seas and skies, so if members choose to address the topic of safeguarding our seas, I do not think it can be called out of order.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Does my colleague from Surrey North not agree that it would have been preferable if we had a more independent safety officer in this regime, as he indicated this in his remarks? He could perhaps expand on this point. That issue, to me, is the weakness of the bill we have in front of us.

Jasbir Sandhu: Mr. Speaker, of course we have been calling for that measure. It is important to have independent regulators for health and safety hazard issues. We have actually been advocating for that. In fact, one of the key recommendations from the Wells inquiry was to establish an independent regulator to oversee health and safety. Again, we had offered an amendment to the bill that called for a review after five years.

We would think the government would look at some of the facts and figures, and that is why I brought up Kijiji earlier on. However, unfortunately, the current government does not look at facts and figures.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The offshore petroleum boards used to be covered by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and there used to be expertise within that body to conduct environmental reviews. That has now been ended, through previous omnibus budget bills. Now we have a reduced, diminished, and weakened EA process that is entirely up to the Newfoundland and Nova Scotia offshore petroleum boards.

By bringing in this much-delayed legislation for offshore worker protection, we have the same thing: the offshore petroleum boards are their own safety regulators.

I wonder if my hon. friend thinks there is something to this analysis, that there is a thematic effort to reduce regulatory efforts in protecting both workers and the environment in our offshore?

Ryan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, I think there is an effort by the current Conservative government to get out of the business of regulatory regime, period. If it were up to the government, industry would regulate itself in every way that could be imagined.

We are here to ensure that does not happen.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Overall I am supportive of the bill, but the part that troubles me is that it seems to be creating new duties on employees. According to proposed section 205.026, “Every employee at a workplace…shall take all reasonable measures to protect their own health and safety….” That is certainly appropriate, but does it create a legal hurdle to an eventual court case? For instance, if we were to have a tragic replay of a helicopter crash, which I hope we never will, would the employees’ conduct and execution of due diligence in protecting their own health stand as an obstacle to their pursuing a remedy?

Matthew Dube: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. In these situations, we are really thinking about workers’ compensation.

I am not a lawyer—that may be an answer we often hear in the House—but I know that we have conducted an analysis and that we have considered that question. For example, the hon. member for St. John’s East has done a lot of work on this file.

When a bill seeks to make things easier for workers, the main thing is that they be given better tools. The legal processes that are in place will perhaps pose certain challenges, but once again, our priority is the health and safety of workers. In this regard, we are comfortable with the content of this bill, as long as the shortcomings that I mentioned in my speech and those that will certainly be raised in committee are taken into account. For now, this bill is a step in the right direction.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The Old Harry site, though, is actually in the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board area and would be the first ever development of petroleum resources inside the Gulf of St. Lawrence, which is one of the most biologically productive areas of Canada’s coastline and is uniquely susceptible to threats from oil and gas accidents or disasters because its counter-clockwise current would take any oil around to absolutely all of the provinces in the area, which as he mentioned, is a multi-jurisdictional area, with Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador.

This piece of legislation deals solely with worker safety in the offshore for both the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia boards. In fact, it is not objectionable, even though it does not go far enough to ensure those workers have an independent safety board. However, when speaking of independence, we have now had the downloading of environmental reviews to these very boards, and they have shown a pattern of consistent bias in favour of developing oil and gas, and in that, they have a conflict of interest when trying to protect the public interest, environmental concerns and the interests of fisheries and fishermen’s organizations throughout the region.

I ask my colleague if he thinks the time has come to have a look at these accords and these acts and see if we should separate out regulatory functions from offshore petroleum promotion functions.

Geoff Regan: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what ought to govern in these questions about what happens in the Gulf of St. Lawrence is science and evidence.

We know the history of the government. It seems to prefer policy-based evidence to evidence-based policy, and really, these decisions ought to be made on the basis of science and evidence.

I suppose on the one hand, the answer to the question depends upon how these boards are structured, who is on them and so forth. Those are important questions in terms of the kinds of decisions that would be made.

I think I have made clear that in relation to this legislation my argument has been that there ought to be a separate independent body dealing with health and safety and that area of regulation. I also know my hon. colleague is well aware of the way the Liberal Party has opposed the many negative changes that the Conservative government has made to harm, really, our environmental legislation in this country.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.

I would like to underline that although the Minister of Natural Resources talked about how this bill would make environmental progress, there is none of that in the bill. I would like to know if my hon. colleague would agree with me that it falls far short of the independent safety board that we really need, because in practice, these offshore petroleum boards are not unbiased; in practice, they operate to promote offshore oil and gas.

Would my hon. colleague agree with me that the legislation before us is indeed better than nothing, but falls far short of what we would all like to see, based on the recommendations of Mr. Wells?

Jack Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right: it is a good step forward, but it falls far short, particularly in terms of recommendation 29 with respect to independence.

The member is also right in saying that although the minister talked about environmental issues, there is absolutely nothing in this legislation that deals with the environment. In fact, that has been another criticism of the offshore oil and gas regime, particularly with respect to even having access to the environmental monitoring that ought to be taking place. That monitoring is not done by independent monitors; in fact, researchers and academics are denied access to the oil platforms for the purpose of even counting birds, doing basic studies, or following up on baseline studies that might have been done years ago.

As a result, we have a situation in which the people who are expected to follow the regulations are the ones who are doing the monitoring. It is not being done by somebody independent. That is the situation in the environmental field, and unfortunately that was also the situation with respect to offshore safety when it came to the lack of regulations: the standards were being set by government, but how to do it was left up to the industry.

In this particular case, we still have a problem in that the same regulator is dealing with both aspects of offshore operations, and we believe that is wrong.

The post Offshore Health and Safety Act appeared first on Elizabeth May.