OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)

House of Commons Debates VOLUME 147 NUMBER 063 2nd SESSION 41st PARLIAMENT Thursday, March 27, 2014 Speaker: The Honourable Andrew Scheer HOUSE OF COMMONS CANADA (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) COMMONS DEBATES March 27, 2014 DEBATES Edited Hansard * Table of Contents * Number 063 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 063 (Official Version) Compte rendu officiel * Table des matières * Numéro 063 (Version officielle) 147 063 27 03 2014 2014/03/27 10:05:00 House of Commons Débats de la Chambre des communes House of Commons Debates 41 2

The House met at 10 a.m. Prayers

Routine Proceedings Routine Proceedings (1005) [ Translation ] Aboriginal Affairs Mr. Mark Strahl (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of various reports. [ English ] They include the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement implementation report, 2011-2012; the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 annual reports of the Yukon land claims and self-government agreements; the Westbank First Nation self-government agreement and annual report on implementation, 2010-2011; and the 2011-2012 Tsawwassen First Nation annual implementation report.

Government Response to Petitions Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 12 petitions.

Committees of the House Agriculture and Agri-Food Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in relation to its study of the Canada–European Union comprehensive economic and trade agreement, recognized as CETA, and the effects of it on the Canadian agriculture sector. Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Criminal Code Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC)

Bill C-581. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-581,

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (physician-assisted death) . He said: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have the opportunity to present what will be a historic piece of legislation. This legislation would amend the Criminal Code to allow physicians to assist individuals at the end of life. It is a bill that would empower individuals, competent adults, to make the best decisions for themselves while at the same time protecting society's most vulnerable individuals. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Canadian Commission on Physician-Assisted Death Hon. Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, CPC)

Bill C-582. Introduction and first reading moved for leave to introduce Bill C-582,

An Act to establish the Canadian Commission on Physician-Assisted Death . He said: Mr. Speaker, given the profound impact the bill just introduced would have, amending the Criminal Code to allow for physician-assisted death, it is felt that

an act to establish the Canadian commission on physician-assisted death would allow for the collection of data such as vital statistics including sex, education, and types of illnesses that would fall under the previous bill. It would also create a commission that could provide suggestions and recommendations to the government or to colleges of physicians and surgeons as time goes on. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed) Mr. Blake Richards : Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion.

I move that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to consider the matter of accusations of the official opposition's improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes and that the Leader of the Opposition be ordered to appear as a witness at a televised meeting of the committee to be held no later than May 16, 2014. The Speaker : Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move this motion? Some hon. members: Agreed. Some hon. members: No.

Use of House of Commons Resources Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch (Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women, CPC) : Motion Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 56.1, I move: That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to consider the matter of accusations of the Official Opposition's improper use of House of Commons resources for partisan purposes; and That the Leader of the Opposition be ordered to appear as a witness at a televised meeting of the committee to be held no later than May 16, 2014.

(1010) The Speaker : Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places? And fewer than 25 members having risen: The Speaker: Fewer than 25 members having risen, the motion is adopted. (Motion agreed to)

Petitions Animal Welfare Mr. John Rafferty (Thunder Bay—Rainy River, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to recognize animals as sentient beings that can feel pain, to move animal cruelty crimes from the property

section of the Criminal Code, and to strengthen the language of federal animal cruelty law in order to close loopholes that allow abusers to escape penalty.

Dementia Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents from the Waterloo region. The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Health and the House of Commons to pass Bill C-356 ,

an act respecting a national strategy for dementia.

Health Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition from many people in Winnipeg North who are concerned about health care in Canada. They are calling upon the government to ensure that the Canada Health Act improves accountability on health care services that are deemed delivered. They are obviously very much concerned about the health care accord and how important it is that the federal government renegotiate and have a new health care pact for the next decade.

Agriculture Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions from Canadians who recognize the inherent rights of farmers to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds. They are calling upon Parliament to enshrine in legislation the inalienable rights of farmers and Canadians to save, reuse, select, exchange, and sell seeds.

Rail Transportation Mrs. Carol Hughes (Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of Canadian citizens from Sault Ste. Marie, Richards Landing, Echo Bay, Bruce Mines, Searchmont, Thessalon, and Wawa to present a petition. They are concerned that the train is about to leave their community and are asking the government to reinstate the federal funding that allowed for the operations of the Algoma Central Railway. They indicate how difficult this will be on their communities and homes, particularly on businesses, and especially the tourism business.

Before the train leaves the station, they would like the government to act on assisting with the funding for at least another year. They would greatly appreciate the support of the Conservative government as opposed to seeing job loss in the riding in northern Ontario. [ Translation ] Mr. François Choquette (Drummond, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to present dozens of petitions concerning the cuts to VIA Rail, which my hon. colleague just mentioned. My constituents in Drummond are also affected by the cuts. The Drummondville station was automated last year, just a few months ago.

People have been very concerned since that happened. Service has deteriorated, and services for seniors and those with reduced mobility are less readily available. Consequently, the signatories are calling on the government to reverse the VIA Rail cuts that were announced in the 2013-14 estimates, and they are asking VIA Rail to cancel the measures announced in July 2013 regarding reduction in services at the Drummondville station.

[ English ] Canada Post Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from several hundred residents of Chapel Arm in my riding who are very upset about the closure and reduced hours of the postal office. The petitioners call on the Government of Canada and Canada Post to maintain, expand, and improve postal services and cease any proposal to reduce hours and diminish services to the residents of Chapel Arm in Newfoundland and Labrador.

(1015) Impaired Driving Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to present petitions that acknowledge the current impaired driving laws are too lenient, in the interest of public safety. The petitioners are calling for tougher laws and implementation of new mandatory minimum sentences for impaired driving causing death. They are also calling for the Criminal Code of Canada to be changed to redefine the offence of impaired driving causing death as vehicular manslaughter.

Health Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition from the UBC School of Nursing students, UBC being in the riding of Vancouver Quadra. The students wish to bring to the attention of the House their deep concern about the expiry of the 2004 health accord in March 2014. They note that Ottawa has already cut funding to the Health Council of Canada, which is funded solely at the federal level and oversees the promises outlined in the health accord to ensure they are upheld.

The nurses from UBC call on the House of Commons to reconsider the dismantling of the Health Council of Canada and to agree to a 2014 health accord, thus renewing government's commitment to a sustainable and universal health care system.

Democratic Reform Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, my second petition is about fair electoral representation and is signed by constituents of Vancouver Quadra. The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to immediately undertake public consultations across Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to ensure that voters can cast equal and effective votes, be represented fairly in Parliament, be governed by a fairly elected Parliament, and live under legitimate laws approved by a majority of elected parliamentarians representing a majority of voters.

The petitioners are members of my constituency who are concerned about the winner take all voting system we currently have in Canada.

Citizenship Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I present a petition with respect to Bill C-24 and the fact that it does unfairly treat current Canadian permanent residents who came to Canada as temporary foreign workers or international students. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to consider amending the Canadian Citizenship Act to recognize non-permanent residency time to be counted toward the citizenship residency requirement.

Questions on the Order Paper Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, Question No. 302 will be answered today. [ Text ]

Question No. 302--

Mr. Ryan Cleary :

With regard to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard: (

a) have there been any reports written on the oil leak of the Manolis L. since it sunk in 1985; (

b) how much has the government spent on cleaning up the oil spill since 1985; and (

c) has there been any study done on developing a long-term solution for the oil spill?

Hon. Gail Shea (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, CPC) :

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), since the Manolis L sank in 1985, it is the understanding of the Coast Guard that there have been two reports written regarding the sinking and potential oil leak: first, the “Investigation Report into the Circumstances Attending the Grounding, Abandonment and Sinking of the Liberian Vessel ‘Manolis L.’ in Notre Dame Bay, Newfoundland on January 17, 1985”, undated, Transport Canada, marine casualty investigations; and second, the “Report of Proceedings—‘Manolis L.’” of June 26, 1985, by the Canadian Coast Guard.

There may have been reports written by owners, agents, insurers, or other interests that the Coast Guard is not aware of nor has access to. To the best of the Coast Guard’s knowledge, these are the only two reports. With regard to (b), the public service does not normally keep such financial records dating this far back, and as such the Coast Guard does not have financial records for monitoring and assessment work done around the time the vessel sank in 1985. Since March 2013, the Coast Guard has expended $600,000 in incremental costs associated with monitoring and pollution mitigation measures.

The Coast Guard does not have the financial records of other government departments who have engaged in any monitoring activities since March 2013.

With regard to (c), the focus to date has been to contain the oil and prevent further leakages into the marine environment. The current approach, using neoprene seals and a cofferdam, is working well. There have been no studies of other potential long-term solutions.

[ English ] Questions Passed as Orders for Returns Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 192, originally tabled on March 24, 2014, could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately. The Speaker: Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Text ]

Question No. 192--

Mr. Sean Casey :

With regard to outside legal counsel, legal advice, or any other form of legal assistance provided to government by non-government lawyers, and broken down by year since 2006: (

a) what is the amount spent by department; (

b) what program activities across government account for the top twenty expenditures used for non-government legal services; (

c) what are the names of law firms used; (

d) what is the breakdown of expenditure wherein the government was the defendant, by department and by cause of action; and (

e) what is the breakdown of expenditure where the government was the plaintiff, by department and by cause of action?

(Return tabled)

[ English ] Mr. Tom Lukiwski : Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. The Speaker : Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Privilege Response to Question No. 176 Privilege The Speaker : The Chair has notice of several questions of privilege, and I will take them in the order in which I received the notices. The hon. member for Avalon. Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege under the provisions of Standing Order 48, alleging obstruction by the Minister of State for Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency , ACOA, as per the notice that I provided to you.

I will be asking you to make a prima facie case, finding that a breach of privilege has occurred concerning a response to an order paper question which was tabled in the House. Specifically, the minister has changed the process and now intentionally interfered to obstruct from releasing information pertinent to my riding, therefore impeding my ability to perform my duties. Some other questions of privilege raised in the House concerning order paper questions have been deemed to be a question of the accuracy of the answer to the question. Mr.

Speaker, I agree that you are not able to determine the accuracy of the answers to order paper questions, and I would not raise a question of privilege to do so. I understand that these historical cases did not constitute a prima facie case breach of privilege. However, the breach of privilege that I am rising on today does not question the accuracy of the answer provided by the minister of ACOA, as I did not receive an answer that provided the requested information. Unfortunately, I have to rise with a question of willingness by the minister to provide important information from his department.

All members know that, as outlined in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice , a question may be placed on the order paper by a member to seek answers from a department pertaining to public affairs. The context of my question was to see what projects ACOA had approved in the riding of Avalon. It is important that I briefly present the facts that led to this breach of privilege, as it is important to understand that this is not a question of accuracy; it is a question of why the minister was willing to provide answers to the questions in the past but now refuses to provide answers to the same questions.

Again, this is not a question of accuracy, but concerns the willingness of the minister to co-operate and provide an answer. I have placed a past order paper question concerning projects funded in part or in full for my riding through ACOA. On each occasion, the minister has provided a detailed list of all approved projects within the riding. The information provided had detailed lists, including project descriptions, locations, applicants, approval dates, and funding levels. The information was provided as such.

This brings me to the question of privilege concerning a response to the most recent order paper question, No. 176, where I asked for a list of projects that ACOA has funded in my riding during a more recent time period. Unfortunately, the answer did not provide the information that was previously provided, by simply stating, “ACOA does not track projects by riding”. This is a definite change in the direction of the department, and I feel it is wrong that the minister has provided this answer to the House.

In the past I have obtained the requested information from the department, and now the minister has become secretive and refuses to provide information. It is relevant to understand that order paper questions have always been accepted parliamentary privilege in order for all members of the House to receive answers to important questions on public affairs. The minister for ACOA has unfortunately obstructed this long-standing privilege to receive such answers, and my work as a parliamentarian has been infringed upon. The question I asked, in 2010, was answered and the information was provided.

Unfortunately, we now have a minister that has intentionally interfered with my ability to obtain the same information for a later period. It is wrong and we need to ensure that parliamentary rights are protected. I ask you to review these facts and ensure we are not heading down a path whereby ministers get to decide when they will provide answers to these important questions.

I would conclude and quote Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada , page 239: Untruthful, equivocating, prevaricating, insulting, and trifling actions have been held in the U.K. to be contemptuous, as has the refusal to answer to questions. Mr. Speaker, if you do find a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

(1020) Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to acquaint myself further with the facts and have a further response to you. However, I do want to point out that although the member protests greatly that there was no response, in fact there was a response to his question. He is unhappy that the response is not in the detail, and does not provide the information, that he would like. I would point out that

chapter 11, page 522, of the big green book, reads as follows: There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Members have raised questions of privilege...regarding the accuracy of information contained in responses to written questions; in none of these cases was the matter found to be a prima facie breach of privilege. The Speaker has ruled that it is not the role of the Chair to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate nor to “assess the likelihood of an Hon.

Member knowing whether the facts contained in the document are correct”. Again, he did receive a response. His problem is that the response is not as detailed as he might have received on another occasion or that the information is not what he would have liked to have received. However, that is really a debate over the adequacy of the response, not the fact of whether or not there was a response. We will respond after we have a few more details, as well. [ Translation ] Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we know that you have ruled on this issue in the past.

Responses are often lacking in quality. However, you are not necessarily able to rule on the quality of the government's responses. We will likely have more to add later. I simply wanted to reserve the right to revisit the issue. (1025) [ English ] The Speaker : I look forward to further submissions on this question. The hon. member for Charlottetown has also advised me of a question of privilege, and I will hear him now.

Oral Questions Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to Standing Order 48, to allege that the Attorney General of Canada and justice minister misled the House yesterday during question period. We cannot accept a situation where the chief legal officer, the Attorney General of Canada , would rise in this place and, in response to a direct question put to the minister, mislead the House by making statements that are demonstrably untrue. These are the facts. In January of this year, I submitted, pursuant to the Standing Orders, a written question that read as follows: With regard to

Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: (

a) what is the current policy of the government, particularly the Department of Justice, about the use or invocation of

Section 33; and (

b) since 2006, how many times has the government directed, suggested, contemplated or requested an analysis, examination or consideration from departmental officials within the Department of Justice, the Privy Council Office, or any government department, about the possible use of

Section 33? The written response, signed by the Attorney General himself, stated: (

a) The Department of Justice has no policy on the use or invocation of

section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause”. To date, Parliament has never made a legislative declaration pursuant to

section 33, although certain provincial legislatures have done so. That was the full response. There was no response to the (

b) part of the question. That was the response that the Attorney General provided to the House of Commons on Monday, March 24, 2014, just three days ago. Yesterday, Wednesday, March 26, there was a question and answer exchange between the Attorney General and I during question period. I posed the following question: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has refused to answer my written question about whether he or any of his political staff have ordered Justice officials to review the use of the notwithstanding clause to overrule Supreme Court decisions.

The courts have slapped down the Conservative legislation on sentencing, fine surcharges, prostitution, their unconstitutional judicial appointment—and lest we forget, this minister fought veterans in court and lost. Will the minister tell the House, when did he or his staff first order departmental officials to assess the use of the notwithstanding clause? This is the relevant portion of his response. It states: Mr.

Speaker, I have no idea why [this] member is insisting on the government examining the use of the notwithstanding clause, unless it is based on the fact that it was his government, his party, that [were the] only [ones] who ever used it. Maybe the member has a propensity for the use of the notwithstanding clause. The answer went on to describe the situation with regard to veterans, which is not particularly pertinent to the point that I seek to make. The House relies on members and ministers of the Crown to speak the truth.

Arguably, this burden rests in a heavier way upon the Attorney General of Canada , the chief legal officer for the country and an officer of the court. It cannot be tolerated by this House to have the Attorney General state, without equivocation, on Monday, “To date, Parliament has never made a legislative declaration pursuant to

section 33...”. and then, for what must be assumed to be partisan purposes, directly contradict himself, by stating the following, two days later, in response to a question about the notwithstanding clause: ....I have no idea why [this] member is insisting on the government examining the use of the notwithstanding clause, unless it is based on the fact that it was his government, his party, that [were the] only [ones] who ever used it. Maybe the member has a propensity for the use of the notwithstanding clause.

We have before the House two statements made by the same minister that are directly in conflict with each other. It cannot be said that this was an error because one statement had been made some time ago, thus attributing it to poor memory. I sincerely hope that this is not a situation where the minister does not know the facts regarding the history of the use of the notwithstanding clause.

(1030) Two directly contradictory statements were made in the House within a period of 48 hours, and this is not inconsequential. To make matters worse, the Attorney General of Canada rose some time later on an attempted point of order in order to clarify his conflicting statement. He apparently sought to clarify his statement in response to a previous point of order from the hon. member for Mount Royal , who, I should note, clearly and factually indicated that a Liberal government had never invoked the notwithstanding clause nor had there been any evidentiary basis to suggest that there was a threat to do so.

Here is what the Attorney General of Canada stated as he attempted to clarify his remarks: For clarity, I wish to ensure that my answer did not imply that the Liberal government of the day “invoked”, which is the word that the member used, the notwithstanding clause, but threatened to use it. The Attorney General , in attempting to clarify his remarks, further misled the House. He effectively doubled down by suggesting that his answer to me during question period did not imply something that we know from the record, he had stated clearly, as a point of fact.

Again, the record will show that the Attorney General of Canada told the House one thing on Monday, something entirely different on Wednesday in response to a question during question period, and then further misled by suggesting that he did not say what he said. This is no minor matter, and this is not the first time that this House has been confronted with conflicting statements from a minister of the Crown.

Members will recall former Conservative minister of international cooperation Bev Oda, who repeatedly told the House of Commons that she knew nothing about the matter of who had inserted the now infamous “not” in a cabinet document that was meant to approve funding for KAIROS. The infamous “not” had the effect of killing funding for KAIROS.

That minister then repeatedly told the House that she had no knowledge as to who inserted the “not”, only to disclose sometime later, when confronted with evidence pointing to the fact, that she not only had knowledge of the infamous “not”, but she in fact had ordered its insertion. On a question of privilege raised by my colleague the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood , Speaker Milliken determined that indeed there was a prima facie case to suggest that the then-minister of international cooperation had misled the House.

More recently, we had the situation of the member for Mississauga—Streetsville , who stood accused of knowingly misleading the House with a statement in relation to the so-called fair elections act. In that instance, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville told this House that he had witnessed voter fraud during the 2011 election. The member made that false claim as a way to provide some credibility to the so-called fair elections act. He retracted that statement after a significant period of time had elapsed, and only when his claim was proven to be false. In your ruling, Mr.

Speaker, you quoted a previous decision rendered on May 7, 2012, in which you outlined the test to be applied that would give rise to a prima facie point to a member’s misleading the House. You said: One, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. On point number one, to prove that the statement is misleading in the case before you, Mr. Speaker, one need only examine the legislative record.

The legislative record is very clear. The answer that the minister gave to the written question on Monday is accurate. No Liberal government, no Conservative government, no Government of Canada has ever invoked the notwithstanding clause. That can be discerned from the legislative record. Point two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect. Well, he certainly knew on Monday when he signed the document that was tabled in the House that indicated the correct state of affairs.

Point three, in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House.

(1035) There are only two explanations for his intentions. Number one, he did not know, or number two, he did know but attempted to mislead. I find it difficult to imagine that a parliamentarian of his experience, someone who sits in the cabinet, did not know the true state of affairs. There is only one possible explanation left. Mr. Speaker, I will be asking you to review the record and to review the statements made by the Attorney General . I submit that the statements made by the Attorney General contain all the elements that you outlined in your previous ruling.

I believe that upon review, you will find it is a clear case that the Attorney General deliberately attempted to mislead the House by way of his statement or, in this case, a series of statements to the House, that he knew or ought to have known were either false or an attempt to mislead. We expect people to speak the truth, not to play loose with statements purporting to be statements of fact. Indeed, to deliberately mislead the House is a clear contempt of Parliament and must be addressed. This is particularly problematic in that these misleading statements were made by the Attorney General of Canada . Mr.

Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie breach of privilege in this case, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion. Hon. Peter MacKay (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would certainly rebut the presumption that the hon. member for Charlottetown is presenting to the House, that I have deliberately misled the House in any way.

In fact, as he himself in his presentation has reminded the House, I rose at the first opportunity to clarify what was said, as is clearly reflected in Hansard , that “…I wish to ensure that my answer did not imply that the Liberal government of the day...” used the word 'invoked', repeating the words that were put on the record by the member for Mount Royal who rose on the initial point of order yesterday and was ruled out of order by the Speaker. My answer goes on to say with respect to “invoked”, “…which is the word that the member used, the notwithstanding clause, but threatened to use it.

Members may recall that former prime minister Paul Martin, and certainly the member for Mount Royal—”. At that time I was interrupted by the Speaker, not yourself, another Speaker in the chair, and reminded that I was not, in his view, permitted to continue with my response. I then again tried to complete my statement on the record and was prevented from doing so by the chair. What I was referring to obviously in that clarification was the use of the notwithstanding clause at that time, the threatened use, the political use, which was clearly the case in 2004.

I am quoting now from a CBC report that says, Prime Minister Paul Martin says he would use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause if the Supreme Court rules that churches must perform gay marriages.” It was in that context. He went on to say when asked by a reporter whether he would use the notwithstanding clause, “Oh, yes I would”. That was the reference that I sought to clarify when I rose in this Chamber yesterday. That clause is in the Constitution by virtue of the Liberal government of the day. The member's question to the department was answered as he mentioned.

He referenced the fact that he had sought information from the Department of Justice with respect to

section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: “…what is the current policy of the government, particularly the Department of Justice, about the use or invocation of

Section 33…?” The answer that he received is quite clear: “The Department of Justice has no policy on the use or invocation of

section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause…”. The member then opines and complains that there was no answer to the second part of his question, which goes on, “…how many times has the government directed, suggested, complained, contemplated or requested an analysis, examination or consideration...”. If there is no policy, why would the government or the Department of Justice then respond to the second part about how many times it was used or contemplated to be used? The member for Charlottetown cannot have it both ways.

He cannot ask how many times the government has contemplated using it. He has been told that there is no policy in this regard. Now he is suggesting that there was an incomplete answer given to him by the department. The clarification that I sought yesterday and the clarification today is the political use, the threatened use, of the notwithstanding clause by the Liberal government of the day. It was not the current government. It was not this minister. It was the government of the party of which the member opposite is a member. I would suggest that my clarification was provided in earnest yesterday.

It was in response to the attempted question of privilege raised by the member's colleague, the member for Mount Royal . I rose at the earliest possible opportunity to provide clarification. There was no deliberate use. I specifically said that I did not use the word “invoked”, and that is the key word that the member for Mount Royal tried to attribute to me in his attempted point of order yesterday. I hope that provides the necessary explanation for you, Mr. Speaker, to make the proper ruling, which is to find against the member for Charlottetown . (1040) [ Translation ] Mr.

Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we find this government's lack of transparency very problematic, and we have repeatedly said as much. This issue is of interest to us as well, so we will come back to it later. We reserve the right to speak to it. [ English ] Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I just want to come back to the specific answer given in question period yesterday and this further attempt at clarification.

The minister yesterday stated as a fact, and he used that word “fact”, that it was, he said, “his government”, meaning a Liberal government, that was the only party that ever used it. He stated that as a fact. This is not an implication. With the greatest of respect, this is an attempt to obfuscate or confuse. He stated as a fact something that he has, even in his response today, indicated that he knows not to be true. The Speaker : I thank the hon. members for raising this matter. As the Minister of Justice pointed out, this was deemed to be a dispute as to the facts yesterday by the chair occupant.

After listening to the debate over the definition of the word “use” or how it would be applied, it seems to me that this is a dispute as to the facts and one member's

interpretation of the word over another, not something that would rise to the threshold of a question of privilege. Therefore, I am going to make that determination at this point, after listening to and examining the transcripts of yesterday. The Chair also has notice from the member for Winnipeg North on a question of privilege.

Statements by the Member for Edmonton Centre Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise this morning because I am concerned about the statements made by the member for Edmonton Centre on March 24, earlier this week. That day we were debating Bill C-23 , the fair elections act, which is the government's term, when the member for Edmonton Centre , I believe, deliberately intended to mislead the House. I do not say that lightly, because that is a form of contempt of the House. I would like to refer to a ruling you recently made, Mr.

Speaker, dealing with another statement, made by the member for Mississauga—Streetsville . I will first go to what the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated and then to your comments, Mr. Speaker, as to why it is important that we be very careful in what we say. I am going to refer to your ruling from just the other day, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

You will recall that on February 6, the member for Mississauga—Streetsville stated: I have actually witnessed other people picking up the voter cards, going to campaign office of whatever candidate they support and handing out these voter cards to other individuals, who then walk into voting stations with friends who vouch for them with no ID. Mr. Speaker, you articulated a ruling that many of us in the chamber actually supported, because we believe that you were right in your assessment. This is, in essence, what you stated, Mr.

Speaker: This incident highlights the...importance of accuracy and truthfulness in our deliberations. All members bear a responsibility, individually and collectively, to select the words they use very carefully and to be ever mindful of the serious consequences that can result when this responsibility is forgotten. In calling on the Chair to arrive at the finding of prime facie in this case, the hon.

House Leader of the Official Opposition cited my ruling of May 7, 2012, where at page 7650 of the Debates, I reminded the House that, before finding that a member had deliberately misled the House, three conditions had to be met: Then you stated those three conditions, Mr. Speaker: ...one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House. I really want to emphasize what we were debating at the time.

It was, once again, much like your ruling, on Bill C-23 . It is an extremely important piece of legislation, and as you know, Mr. Speaker, it is exceptionally controversial. We have had emotional debates on both sides of the House. However, it is expected that when members participate in a debate, they are not going to try, in any way, to intentionally or deliberately mislead. This is what I believe has happened here. Let me quote what the member for Edmonton Centre actually stated. Please keep in mind that the debate on that day was all about vouching.

The government's position on vouching is that we should not allow vouching. That is what the Conservatives were trying to espouse throughout that day. Here is what the member stated, and this can be found on page 3778, March 24: In the 2006 election, I was called personally and offered hundreds of voter cards that had been left in apartment buildings and so on. Like an idiot, I said, “No, we don't do that sort of thing”. I should have said, “Yes, come on down”, and had the police waiting.

(1045) It is obvious that the member for Edmonton Centre instantly recognized that something was wrong with that phone call. In hindsight, he felt that it was illegal, because he believed that the police should have been contacted on the matter. To the best of my knowledge, I do not believe that the police were contacted. I hope that the member will address that issue. More importantly, since this statement, we have found out that the voter cards we are debating today were not being used back in 2006. This comes from Elections Canada.

The reason the member was focused on the voter cards was that he was trying to discredit the idea of Canadians being able to be vouched for. That is of critical importance. On page 65 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , “parliamentary privilege” is defined as: ...the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively [...] and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions... I was here on Monday when I heard the member make the statement.

There is no doubt in my mind that in making that statement, his intent was to try to give the House the impression that illegal activities were taking place and that vouching was wrong. If we review some of the statements put forward by the member at the time, they were contradicted by media reports by, for example, the CBC, The Hill Times , and others. They seem to contradict what the member for Edmonton Centre was trying to lead members of the House to believe on March 25. I would suggest that such a review would be appropriate. I look forward to the member for Edmonton Centre 's contribution on this issue.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you find that there are grounds that this is a prima facie contempt of Parliament, at which point I would be prepared to move a motion to have the matter referred to the appropriate committee for further study.

(1050) Hon. Laurie Hawn (Edmonton Centre, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with obvious interest. My hon. friend gives me far too much credit for Machiavellian intrigue. It had nothing to do with trying to mislead anybody. I was simply stating a fact. I do not recall him being in my office that day during the campaign in 2006 nor having him listening in on phone calls. He can choose to believe that the phone call happened or not. That is up to him. It does not constitute a case of trying to mislead anyone about anything. It was simply stating a fact.

With respect to the voter identification cards, they did indeed exist in 2006. They were used, but they were not authorized to be used as a primary or sole form of identification. They were certainly there. What Elections Canada allows, whether it is voter ID cards, vouching, or whatever, and whether they are not allowed to be used or whether vouching is only supposed to be one for one, does not mean that people are not trying to get around those regulations. Human nature being what it is, people will always try to get around a system, and they will always try to do that for an advantage.

It was in the heat of an election, as the member well knows. I got the phone call. Yes, in retrospect I should have invited him down. I should have had the police investigating, and so on. In the heat of an election, quite frankly, there is not the time to deal with that kind of nonsense. We just put it aside and moved on to the election. There was no attempt to mislead. I was simply stating a fact. I got a phone call. That was the request. Voter cards did exist in that election, but they were not to be used as primary ID. I was not misleading anyone about anything.

I appreciate the member thinking that I am smart enough to be that Machiavellian, but it is simply nonsense. Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to elaborate a little further, because what we essentially have here, raised under the point of order, is actually a debate as to the issue that is in the legislation. There are some very important facts, though, that have been omitted from the submission.

The first fact that was omitted from the submission, and the wording was used very carefully, was that cards like this were not used by Elections Canada for identification at the time, the implication being that there were no such cards. However, there were voter information cards sent out by Elections Canada to electors at that time. They did receive them. Hence the phone call that the hon. member received.

Having been Minister for Democratic Reform in the period after 2006, I can say that the reason Elections Canada can say with certainty that they were not authorized for use as identification is that we had not yet passed into law the requirement for people to show identification when they voted, so of course they were not used for a provision that did not yet exist in the law. The fact that they were not used for that purpose is a red herring. It is entirely irrelevant. Everybody knows what the practice was in those days. There was no requirement to show identification.

What most people did was walk in, take the card they had received at their home, present it, and say that they were there to vote. There was no inquiry into whether that was who they were or not. Elections officials simply accepted the card, and people voted on that basis. That is why the action to which the hon. member for Edmonton Centre was referring was one whereby somebody was saying that they knew a way that they could probably achieve fraud.

The reason they knew this was that anybody who lived in an apartment and who threw away their card was unlikely to bother showing up to vote, so there was a good chance someone else could show up in their name, present their card, and vote. When we look at all those facts, it is quite clear that nothing the hon. member for Edmonton Centre said was incorrect or misleading in any way. In fact, if someone is misleading right now, it is the individual who is trying to raise the question of privilege.

He is the one who is misleading the House, because he is implying there were voter identification provisions that did not exist in the law at the time and he is implying that Elections Canada did not send out such cards, which at that time they did. I would say that this is an open-and-shut case. There is no question of privilege here to be presented. This is a very different matter from what was raised earlier in the House.

(1055) Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the point being raised by the member for Winnipeg North . While there may be some merit to it, on behalf of the official opposition I would like to indicate that we reserve the opportunity to comment at a later point in time. We just have not had the opportunity to consider the merits in detail. The Speaker : I do understand the hon. member's desire to weigh in on this matter, but allow me to save him the trouble.

After listening to the statements by the member for Winnipeg North and the response from the member for Edmonton Centre , there certainly is not anything before the Chair as to any kind of evidence that the member knowingly said anything that he knew at the time not to be true. This seems to be a dispute as to what may or may not have happened in the 2006 election, but there is certainly nothing that would indicate to the Chair that the member has knowingly misled the House. Members are free to have this kind of debate when the bill is back in the House and at committee.

I do not think it should be brought to the floor as debate continued under the guise of a question of privilege, because there is not anything that I have heard that would raise it to that level.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS Government Orders [ English ] Offshore Health and Safety Act Bill C-5. Report stage The House proceeded to the consideration of 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 , as reported with amendments from the committee. The Speaker : There being no motions at report stage on this bill, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage. Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch (for the Minister of Natural Resources) Bill C-5.

Motion for concurrence moved that the bill be concurred in. (Motion agreed to) The Speaker : I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now? Some hon. members: Agreed. [ Translation ] Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch (for the Minister of Natural Resources) moved that the bill be read the third time and passed. Third reading She said: Mr.

Speaker, I am very proud to add my voice to support this worthy legislation. [ English ] If there is one thing our government has been crystal clear about when it comes to energy development, it is that public health and safety and environmental protection are paramount. This is the very essence of reasonable resource development. There is no question we are determined to create high-quality jobs, economic growth, and long-term prosperity for all Canadians, and the energy sector has certainly delivered that to Atlantic Canadians in recent years.

Since the oil and gas industry began operating offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador in the late 1960s, the region's economy has been transformed. In 2010, the industry generated wages, salaries, and benefits worth $291 million in the province of Newfoundland alone.

Not only does the sector clearly make a major contribution to the livelihoods of workers, but it also improves the standard of living of all residents in the region, and there is also no debate that we recognize that it would be irresponsible to promote development without the assurance that the health and safety of our citizens and the protection of our environment will be fully addressed. That is precisely what Bill C-5 is designated to do. It would better safeguard Atlantic offshore oil and gas workers.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers reports that over 5,000 individuals are currently employed in the oil and gas industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. Almost 1,000 more work in Nova Scotia's petroleum sector, and the potential is great for even more jobs and economic growth in the near future. Recent offshore oil and gas discoveries are bringing a new wave of activity into the Atlantic provinces. There is all the more reason, then, for Bill C-5 . Workers in the industry need to be protected, given the dangerous conditions associated frequently with their jobs.

Under the Canada Labour Code, workers are protected from hazards in the workplace. This protection includes the fundamental right to refuse dangerous work. As was underscored by the tragic March 2009 crash of Cougar flight 491 ferrying oil workers to offshore rigs and by the catastrophic sinking of the Ocean Ranger oil rig in 1982, worker safety must be job number one. I can assure the House that our government is committed to ensuring the health and safety of Canadian workers and the protection of the environment.

That is why we are introducing this new regime for Atlantic offshore workplaces. [ Translation ] Before outlining these improvements in detail, let me first explain where the federal government fits in this picture. (1100) [ English ] The Government of Canada shares responsibility for the management of the offshore with the Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. These responsibilities are laid out in bilateral accords with each province, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Canada's Atlantic offshore oil and gas industry is regulated by the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, as well as the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. These boards ensure that operators and drilling contractors comply with the requirements of their respective implementation acts and exercise due diligence to prevent spills in Canada's offshore. The Atlantic accords have been in place since the 1980s and are no longer sufficient to reflect contemporary requirements. They require modernization.

The labour program, along with representatives from Natural Resources Canada, provincial energy and labour departments, and the provinces' offshore petroleum boards have identified and agreed to key areas for improvement. First, the legislation places authority for occupational health and safety within the accord acts.

If adopted, this legislation would establish an occupational health and safety framework within the Atlantic accord acts. [ Translation ] The new regime would apply to worker safety on-site at offshore rigs, as well as to workers in transit to or from offshore platforms. [ English ] The new regime would apply both to worker safety on site at an offshore rig as well as to workers in transit to or from an offshore platform.

It would be jointly overseen by the Minister of Natural Resources and provincial occupational health and safety ministers for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. [ Translation ] It would be enforced by their individual offshore petroleum boards. [ English ] The boards would be responsible for verifying that companies have adequate plans in place to protect their employees and to avoid dangers. This includes everything from ensuring the safe handling of hazardous materials to proper procedures related to the operation of equipment and managing facilities.

Using audits and inspections, we would confirm that all applicable health and safety requirements were met and demand correction if deficiencies were found.

As well, the boards would be granted increased authority, such as enforcement powers for occupational health and safety officers. [ Translation ] These include the powers of inspection and investigation, warrant provisions and creative sentencing measures in case of dangerous situations. (1105) [ English ] Under Bill C-5 , the Minister of Labour would provide ongoing federal labour expertise, such as the development of regulations, the issuance of directives to the boards, and recommendations on the appointments of special officers. [ Translation ] Special officers would be appointed to avoid a serious, imminent risk to the health and safety of offshore workers. [ English ] Such a scenario would proceed following joint approval and appointment by the pertinent provincial ministers and the Minister of Natural Resources , following a recommendation by the Minister of Labour.

Along with the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Labour would also co-appoint six members of a 13-member advisory council to be made up of employers, employees, and the two levels of government. The council would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas about occupational health and safety issues to ensure the effectiveness of this legislation. Bill C-5 also introduces consequential amendments to

part II of the Canada Labour Code. In the event of an accident, the bill would extend the time limit to launch a prosecution from one year to two years, consistent with the occupational health and safety legislation in many provinces. The Minister of Labour would also have the right to disclose information to the public regarding occupational health and safety.

The amendments would also give the Minister of Labour the authority to share information with federal and provincial government departments as well as with international organizations if the minister deems it to be in the interests of occupational health and safety or in the public interest overall. This would make it easier to share information during a coroner's inquest or a provincial prosecution. I want to be clear, however, that personal information would continue to be protected. I should point out several minor amendments to the legislation since it has been debated at second reading.

Most amendments are technical in nature, such as putting the word “Canada” in the title of the regulations and renumbering the subtexts of the act that were incorrectly numbered. Some were needed to harmonize federal and provincial legislation. For instance, we had to replace the provincial “Occupational Health and Safety Act” in Nova Scotia with the correct new name of its Labour Board Act, as this province has amended its legislation recently. Federal and provincial legislation obviously must mirror each other.

Several amendments were required as a result of Bill C-4 , the second budget implementation act, and changes to

part II of the Canada Labour Code. The changes proposed under the Canada Labour Code would make coordinating amendments. “Minister of Labour” would now replace the terms “health and safety officer” or “regional health and safety officer” to reflect the minister's authority to delegate powers, duties, and functions previously conferred to health and safety officers. Let me be clear that through the delegation process, decisions will continue to be made by health and safety officers with the necessary expertise.

Coordination is required around the protections within the code regarding the minister giving testimony in civil proceedings, and these amendments now refer to “civil and administrative proceedings”, which include arbitration hearings. The improvements I have outlined respond to input received in extensive consultations in 2010 and 2011. The provinces and industry and employee groups have all expressed strong support for the changes we have proposed.

They have done so because they recognize that these changes would ensure that Canada's offshore industries will operate safely and to the highest environmental standards. Bill C-5 would create a modern occupational health and safety regime that is relevant and responsive to today's offshore oil and gas reality, and, most importantly, it would provide robust protection for Canada's oil and gas workers, ensuring their safety and health in the workplace. Thousands of Atlantic Canadian workers are looking to us to ensure their well-being and continued prosperity.

Therefore, I urge all parties to support the bill and make these amendments the law of the land. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the legislation, but there is one serious problem with it that I wish to raise. The minister mentioned the Cougar helicopter crash. Of course, following that, there was an inquiry by former Justice Wells as the lead commissioner. He made what he called his most important recommendation, number 29, that there ought to be an independent offshore safety regulator. The minister mentioned that the accords were bilateral agreements.

The Newfoundland government firmly and strongly supported that recommendation, yet the government failed to agree. Not only did it fail to agree to that, it also failed to agree to an NDP amendment proposed at committee to have a 5-year review of that provision to see how the act is operating and reconsider that request. Why did the government refuse to do that?

(1110) Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned before, our government will continue to work with the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with respect to the safety of these offshore areas. Commissioner Wells was actually very clear at the natural resources committee in December, when he said that he was pleased with our offshore health and safety legislation. He was also very clear that good would come from the government's adoption of his recommendations.

I encourage the members opposite to please read through the transcripts and be informed about what specifically was said at committee. Mrs. Susan Truppe (Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I know that in my riding of London North Centre, jobs and safety are very important to my constituents. Just recently, I was happy to attend a joint announcement by GDLS and the Minister of International Trade of one of the largest contracts in the history of Canada, one that will result in the employment of over 3,000 people.

In the minister's speech, she mentioned that we need better safeguards, that workers need protection and that their safety is number one. Here, could the minister explain how important the offshore oil and gas industry is to Canada and what would be the most effective change in Bill C-5 . Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for London North Centre for really focusing on jobs. This is a huge component of what we are trying to achieve here.

Whether it be the almost 5,000 individuals in Newfoundland and Labrador, or the over 1,000 individuals in Nova Scotia, this will have a direct impact on them by ensuring that we are growing the oil and gas economy in Atlantic Canada and reaching out not only directly to those employees, but also via the spinoff benefits to the individuals who are beneficiaries of this. Specifically with respect to these accords, the health and safety of all Canadian workers is paramount.

If individuals cannot attend work knowing they are in a safe environment, where they can work safely throughout the entire day, and from where they can return to their families in the evenings, quite frankly with their lives and all of their fingers and toes intact, it makes it very challenging for them to be productive at work.

The direction of these accords is first to make sure that those workers on oil and gas rigs in Atlantic Canada know they are safe and that they can have a productive day and, second, that the industry overall is safe so that we can continue to grow it and create more jobs in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, in the minister's speech she referred to the Ocean Ranger disaster. Following that particular disaster, Chief Justice Hickman headed a royal commission on the Ocean Ranger .

There are still some outstanding recommendations from Chief Justice Hickman's report of almost 20 years ago. When putting the bill together, did the government look at any of the recommendations of Chief Justice Alex Hickman's royal commission on the Ocean Ranger disaster? Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, with respect to the specific report, I would have to ask my officials, since I do not have a note on that. However, extensive consultations have taken place since 2003, which were updated in 2010 and 2011.

Employers, employees, and governments have all been consulted and are very supportive of what is going forward. We will continue to update the regulations associated with this to make sure that we are meeting the standards of the day. I appreciate the member's comments and I would be quite happy to get back to him with a specific answer. [ Translation ] Ms. Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe (Pierrefonds—Dollard, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the minister would refuse to answer a very simple question. I will try to ask it in the simplest way possible.

Why was recommendation 29 from the Wells report not included in Bill C-5 ? It is a simple question. Can she answer it? [ English ] Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I think I answered this question, which was that Mr. Wells was very clear at the Natural Resources committee in December that he was pleased with the offshore health and safety legislation that currently exists.

(1115) Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for carefully outlining the aspect of Bill C-5 dealing primarily with the occupational health and safety issue. She also responded earlier to a question regarding the number of workers who benefit from oil and gas production on offshore rigs. I think that Canadians probably often think of the oil sands as the place from where all the oil is coming. I wonder if the minister would tell us what percentage of oil from offshore oil and gas development Canadians rely on.

I think it is important to realize not only the impact of oil on jobs and opportunities for Canadians, but also the energy needs of Canadians. It is important, first of all, that we have good, safe regulations to protect our workers. It is also important that we have access to good quality oil products. Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, having grown up in a part of the country that is known for being the focal point of oil refining and development, northern Alberta and Fort McMurray, I am delighted to know that many of the individuals helping to grow Canada's economy are Atlantic Canadians.

The offshore contributes significantly to our nation's production, including 35% of Canada's total light crude production and close to 10% of Canada's total crude production 2010. These are substantial numbers that are driving the economies of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as contributing to Nova Scotia's economy. The statistics are very clear. These activities represented 30% of Newfoundland and Labrador's GDP in 2010 and roughly 3% of Nova Scotia's GDP in the same timeframe. It directly employs over 5,100 Canadians. The oil and gas sector in Atlantic Canada is growing.

It is great for Canadians, it is great for Atlantic Canadians, and it is great for individuals to know they are contributing so substantially to the Canadian economy and making sure there are jobs at home supporting thousands of Atlantic Canadians. Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, we have raised the issue of an independent regulator a number of times. As my colleague for St. John's East said, it was an important recommendation in Commissioner Wells' report. We have supported the bill because it is an improvement over the current situation.

Nonetheless, this is something that needs to be addressed. At committee, the NDP moved an amendment to ask for a ministerial review of the effectiveness of these changes within five years. The commissioner had indicated that while the bill was an improvement, it might not answer everything and that there might be a need to address in the future and to make revisions at a later point in time. Also, having an independent regulator is something that other nations doing similar work have done.

Therefore, why would the minister not be willing to support an amendment that would allow the minister to do a review within five years? Let us remember that we are trying to ensure the safety of the men and women who work in this industry and to fully protect us from environmental disasters. Hon. Khristinn Kellie Leitch : Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I think the committee testimony was quite clear. The regulatory process has begun and we will be continuing the development of regulations following the passage of the bill.

Provisions within the proposed amendments require that the regulations be completed within the next five years, and we are continuing to receive input. However, whether it be the government or others, we are always open to constructive input that provides opportunities to improve the health and safety of Canadians. If opposition members or other Canadians have recommendations that we should be considering, I encourage them to send them to me. Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak at third reading on Bill C-5 , an important piece of legislation for the Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia offshore petroleum industries, which are extremely important not only to Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but also to Canada, as pointed out by previous speakers. As was said, the industry produces 35% of Canadian light crude production, is a significant contributor to our oil industry, and has made a significant difference to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are proud of the very strong industry that we have and the contribution it makes to our workforce and our industry, to our universities, our education system, as well as to the lives of people who are able to earn a very good living from its development. It has been a positive experience, but we also know that work on the offshore is inherently dangerous. We have had very sad reminders of that in the past.

The Ocean Ranger disaster in February 1982 was mentioned, where 84 offshore workers were drowned in a serious disaster, where a rig engaged in exploration of the offshore in Newfoundland sank and, of course, most recently, the Cougar Helicopter crash in 2009 with the loss of 17 lives. There was another helicopter crash in the late 1980s. So we do know that we have an industry with a lot of opportunity for injury as well as loss of life, as we have sadly seen. That is what the bill is about. The bill would put in place a safety regime in legislation, believe it or not, for the first time in the offshore.

What we have had up until now is a set of draft regulations. It is almost hard to believe that the entire offshore in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia was operated under a set of draft regulations, under some theory that if we had the draft regulations it would force the employers, the industry players, and the companies to follow them as if they were guidelines. However, there were no enforcement mechanisms.The only enforcement mechanisms were to put a stop work order on the rig. But that was an all or nothing situation.

One could not actually go and inspect and find someone who had violated a provision and use those rules to make an improvement, to issue a fine, and use the same regulatory process used in health and safety to ensure compliance with the rules. I have some experience with offshore workers. In my life as a lawyer, I represented Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil workers in their efforts to obtain union representation and recognition. They in fact became the first offshore oil workers in North America to achieve collective bargaining.

Of course, important aspects of collective bargaining include wages and working conditions, but there was also an extreme level of interest in the process of safety committees, how safety was being managed by these companies and employers, and on the part of employees and their elected organizations in participating fully in this process. We have seen as well a very significant delay in the implementation of significant recommendations that came, for example, from the Ocean Ranger disaster.

One of them was that an emergency helicopter should be stationed in the area closest to the offshore and be available on up to 45 minutes' notice. That was not implemented. That recommendation was made in 1985 and it did not become implemented until the last year or so, after Justice Wells stated that he wanted this to happen immediately. We now have a standby helicopter at St. John's available to wheel up in 20 minutes any time another helicopter is in the area transporting workers back and forth to the oil platforms and drilling platforms. That took 20 or 30 years to be put in place.

(1120) The negotiations with respect to this legislation have been going on for 13 years. It is astonishing. With the minister having said that this is a top priority and that job one is the health and safety of offshore workers, the delays that have taken place and the length of time that it has taken to get these regulations in place are shocking. That is something that the workers are quite concerned about, and have been for many years. We still have concerns, and the workers have concerns, about the use of night flights for helicopters.

Former Justice Wells, during the course of the helicopter inquiry, issued an interim recommendation that there be no more night flights. Evidence had been presented to the helicopter inquiry that it is significantly more difficult to rescue people at night and that the rate of loss of life when a helicopter ditches at night is some 65% to 70% higher than if the ditching happens in the daylight. As a result of his recommendation, the C-NLOPB stopped night flights.

The companies are now seeking to return to night flights, and there is strong opposition to that from many quarters, including the workers and the workers representatives; so we still see ongoing issues and problems. However, I want to reiterate that we support this legislation because it was pushed by the workers' representatives who were involved both directly in the offshore and also with the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour. They participated in these negotiations in Nova Scotia.

They worked to ensure that the same kinds of safety regimes that exist on land, in terms of the right of a worker to refuse unsafe work and to participate in health and safety committees, are now parallel in the offshore. That is an achievement. Therefore, it is not a surprise that people support this legislation; it is an advance over what is there today. The regulations would be in place. They would be enforceable. There would be a system for that and a more rigorous involvement of worker representatives in health and safety committees. That is a success. Therefore, we support it.

We have supported it through committee. We did want improvements. I will provide an example of the kind of evidence the committee heard from witnesses. I would like to quote from the presentation by Lana Payne, who is the Atlantic director for Unifor at the moment but was the president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Federation of Labour for a number of years.

In her testimony before the committee, she said: ...we are pleased that we finally have this safety regime for workers of the offshore oil industry, but we do believe that a stand-alone, powerful, and independent safety and environmental authority is not only necessary but also essential in advancing safety in the Newfoundland and Labrador offshore oil and gas industry. That was her testimony before the committee on December 9 of last year. That echoes recommendation number 29 of Mr. Justice Wells, which he characterized as his most important recommendation.

He did that based on his study of regimes in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Australia, and Norway. Even the United States has recognized the necessity of having a separate regime so that the health and safety of offshore workers is dealt with separately in the regulation of the industry, which involves quite a lot of collaborative work back and forth. The concern is what Mr. Justice Wells called regulatory capture.

(1125) That is a phrase used to describe what can happen if the regulator becomes very close to the industry it is regulating and ends up not being able to be independent and provide the sole priority of looking after the health and safety of workers. That is why this recommendation was made and that is why these countries that have mature oil and gas regimes, such as Norway and the U.K. in the North Sea, have adopted it as a result of learning that it was necessary to make sure they had, as Lana Payne has so eloquently put it, “...a stand-alone, powerful, and independent safety and environmental authority...”.

That is what is required. The Newfoundland government supported that recommendation. We have a truly bilateral event here. We have not been given an explanation by the minister as to why the Government of Canada has said no. Why has it said no? The government has not provided any rationale in the minister's speech today, despite two questions to the minister—or was it three?—asking why that was. Mr. Justice Wells still supports his recommendations.

The Government of Newfoundland is very adamant that it wants to see a stand-alone offshore safety body that can handle safety and health issues, and we would add environment to that, as well, as Lana Payne has pointed out. We do have reservations, obviously, about this.

We thought that at least the government would recognize, if it was not going to adopt recommendation number 29 and put in place a stand-alone review, and accept the amendment, which is: The Minister of Natural Resources must cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than five years after this Act comes into force, a report on the operation and implementation of this Act, including whether an independent offshore area regulator is desirable.

That would require this notion of the independent safety regulator to be foremost in the mind of the government as we go forward and, in five years, report to Parliament: “What can you tell us about the operation of this act, in light of the recommendation for an independent regulator? Can you show us that it has operated well without that?

Or have you been able to conclude that an offshore separate regulator is available?” That was an important effort and we thought that, from the point of view of government operations, particularly in light of the strong recommendation that has come forward and the strong support of the Newfoundland government, the partner in this, we would see agreement on that at least. But, no, it got very short shrift at the committee from the government members without really any effort to justify why they were not accepting that. However, that is not unusual from the current government.

It is not unusual for us to go to committee with cogent arguments, with witness support, with experts and expertise, and time and again this happens in committees with the current government. It has not always been like that. I was here with another government, a Progressive Conservative government, back in the 1980s. We had committee meetings. We offered suggestions. We made amendments. The amendments were debated. Some were accepted; some were rejected. It was a somewhat more collegial effort, shall we say, than we have in committee with the current government.

Anything the government proposes has to be perfect. It must be perfect. Of course, it is perfect until it realizes it has made some mistakes and then it brings in a bunch of amendments itself, as it did in this case. I think it brought forward 10 at the end of the day: “Oh, we've got to fix this, this, and this”; but if anybody else makes a suggestion: “Oh, no. It's perfect as it is. We don't need to change anything because, of course, we wouldn't bring anything forward if it wasn't right and proper”. That is an unfortunate attitude.

I do not know whether it represents paranoia, immaturity, lack of confidence, or just sheer pigheadedness, but the current government does not seem to recognize that any good suggestions can come from any location other than its side of the House, or maybe from the PMO.

(1130) Maybe all suggestions must flow from the PMO instead of members opposite who are listening to what is said in committee, accepting that the arguments make sense, and agreeing that the legislation may need to be amended slightly to make it better. That is the theory of debate and amendment. Amendments are made to improve legislation, not to change it so that it would do something different from what was intended. If an amendment goes against the original intention of the legislation, it is ruled out of order.

The only amendments acceptable in parliamentary procedure are ones that are within the scope of the bill and are offered by way of improvement to better achieve the purposes of the bill. The purpose of this legislation is to have an offshore health and safety regime that reflects the needs of the people in the industry and the industry itself. Its purpose is to have a robust safety regime that ensures the safety of all workers and that ensures that the operation can be done properly, as the minister mentioned, both on site and also in transit back and forth to the oil platforms and rigs.

It has been pointed out that three rigs are presently in operation and another one is in the works, which should be operating by 2017. The Hebron-Ben Nevis field is farther out, some 400 kilometres offshore, which is a very grave distance. Helicopters fly out there in all sorts of sea conditions—obviously not in too inclement weather—that make it difficult to ditch an aircraft, if that becomes necessary. In this case, the helicopter that is being used is the only helicopter of its class that does not have a 30-minute run dry capability, which is when the main gearbox loses oil.

It is required that a helicopter be able to operate for 30 minutes with a total loss of oil in the main gearbox. That requirement is for significant safety reasons. It is a requirement for military helicopters, some of which will run dry for an hour or more, but the minimum standard is 30 minutes. When Sikorsky designed this helicopter, it received an exemption on the basis that this would never happen, or that the chances of it ever happening were remote, one in ten million hours.

In the first 100,000 flying hours of helicopters of this type it happened twice, in Australia in the summer of 2008 and in the offshore of Newfoundland in March of 2009. In Australia, the helicopter was fortunately over land and the pilots could land it quickly to avoid a disaster. The second time it tragically happened in the offshore of Newfoundland. Unfortunately the documentation for this aircraft suggested that it did have 30-minute run dry capability. The helicopter pilots were heading for land, expecting to have 30 minutes to get there, but they had less than 12 minutes.

The helicopter seized up and crash-landed into the ocean, causing the loss of 17 of the 18 people onboard. Miraculously, one person survived that crash. As has been said, this is a significant step forward. We would have an enforceable health and safety regime in the offshore. Workers would have the right to refuse unsafe work and participate on health and safety committees. Hopefully, we will have a good regime that will work.

Unfortunately, we do not have the independent safety regulator that was recommended by Commissioner Wells and supported by the government and people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the offshore workers themselves. Unfortunately, the government will not commit to reviewing that in five years. However, we do support the legislation.

(1135) Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for his intervention and acknowledge that he has been around this file on the offshore for some time. I am going to lean on him for his knowledge and expertise in this matter to follow up on a question that I tried to ask the minister regarding the Ocean Ranger and Chief Justice Alex Hickman's commission. The report had 136 recommendations to improve the offshore oil industry. The government has only implemented 90 of those 136. That leaves 46 recommendations unfulfilled from that particular inquiry.

My question is whether any of the 46 recommendations have made their way into this legislation to improve the offshore off of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. We talked about the other inquiry, and there were two recommendations left out, but I am curious about the Ocean Ranger inquiry. Have any of the 46 recommendations that have been left undone made their way into this legislation at all?

(1140) Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, I have been involved for a long time. In fact, I participated in the Ocean Ranger inquiry when it was launched in 1982, as a new young lawyer in St. John's, in Newfoundland and Labrador. A great deal of effort and anxiety went into coming up with these recommendations. Unfortunately, as the member pointed out, the recommendation of having a rescue helicopter available was, shockingly, not implemented until after the Cougar helicopter crashed, more than 25 years after the recommendations were made. I do not have a compendium of all of the recommendations.

Clearly, the Ocean Ranger recommendation is now in place. It was not thanks to this legislation, but it was thanks to the recommendation of former Justice Wells that we have the helicopter for search and rescue purposes. There are outstanding recommendations, as the hon. member has pointed out, and they should be attended to. An evacuation system is a recommendation that has been worked on over the years. I do not think that we have the right system yet. There are still other recommendations that need to be looked at. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr.

Speaker, obviously we are biased in favour of this bill and we will support it because we always get behind worker health and safety measures. It is sad that, as usual, nothing changes until someone dies. I am not saying that is always the case, but it is often the case. I have a question for my hon. colleague about the bill before us. Big changes have been made and we are moving in the right direction, but now we are up against one of this government's ideological impediments, which is that private industry should self-regulate. We have seen this in other sectors, such as rail transportation.

Is that why Justice Wells' recommendation to create an independent worker safety authority—which was probably the most important recommendation—is not in this bill? [ English ] Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question, and particularly for his observation about how the Conservative government has been working with respect to recommendations of a health and safety nature. Safety does cost money. We have seen the resistance by industry to advances that cost money. They obviously do not want to spend money where they do not have to.

It does require a government that is vigorous in insisting that the things that need to happen do happen, for the sake of offshore worker safety. We see some of that here, but we do not see it going far enough. The night flights offshore are a good example. Why do we need night flights? We need them so we can operate the same number of helicopters for a greater period of time. The alternative is to have more helicopters. If we had an extra helicopter, we would not have to fly at night. However, extra helicopters cost money. There has to be a crew. There is a trade-off being urged between worker safety and cost.

We would clearly prefer to come down on the side of worker safety. If night flights are more dangerous, we should be able to insist that there are more helicopters in place. If helicopters that have a run-dry capability of 30 minutes are available, then they should be used, not the ones that do not have the capability. They may cost more money and there may be a cost in replacing them, but the value of the lives and safety of workers has to take precedence over that. We do not see that kind of attitude coming from the Conservative government.

(1145) Mr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the intervention by my friend from St. John's East . You spoke, I thought very eloquently about your work in committee and the fact that there was no statutory— The Deputy Speaker : I would remind the member for Victoria to direct his comments to the Chair, not to other members. Mr. Murray Rankin : Mr. Speaker, through you, the member for St. John's East made a very eloquent statement about the nature of the work at committee on this matter and the fact that the government rejected the notion of a five-year review.

Having worked on committees in which that five-year process has been required, such as under the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act, and having seen a Progressive Conservative government release a unanimous committee report with recommendations, I saw first-hand the utility of such a statutory review. My question is twofold. Given that this bill requires agreement with the two provinces at issue, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, would the Conservatives find such a statutory review acceptable after a five-year period?

I would like to also know why the government would reject the notion of a five-year review in these circumstances. Mr. Jack Harris : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and compliments from my learned friend and colleague for my speech, but I think he knows that I cannot answer why the Conservatives would reject it, other than to speculate. There appears to be an unfortunate lack of collegiality at committee. Politicians obviously posture, especially in the House of Commons, but in committees one would expect to have a greater level of collegiality. In some committees there is that collegiality.

I am looking at the prominent member of the fisheries committee, which has had collegiality as an operating principle over many years. However, when it comes to dealing with legislation, we do not see the collegiality that should exist to improve and make things happen. That was a reasonable—though I would not call it a compromise. New Democrats were not going to get what we wanted. However, the committee should have been able to put that on the radar of the current government, or the next government. It may not be the current government. We are hoping it will not be the Conservative government, but it might be.

Whatever government is in place, it would be on the radar of that government that this should be looked at. The bureaucracy and those involved would then look forward to this happening in five-years' time and be able to prepare to deal with that. It is very unfortunate. That is all I can say. I do not know why that is, except stubbornness. Whatever is in the legislation that Conservatives put there is all that they want to do. Hon. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-5 .

This is the second day this week that the House has debated legislation that impacts activities in the offshore sector, which, to those of us in Atlantic Canada, like my colleague the member for St. John's East , who just spoke, and the member for Avalon , who asked him a question, is very important. It is very important to our economy and to the people who work in the offshore sector who benefit from that. It is very important that they are safe in the work they do and in travelling to and from the offshore platforms. The offshore sector can be a dangerous place.

I know there are many measures taken to make it as safe as possible, but it is tough work. It can be dangerous work, and we have seen unfortunate proof of that over the years. In fact, there are brave men and women working out there every day performing very challenging work. [ Translation ] Making sure that these people are safe in their workplaces and that they return home to their families must be a priority for all of us. Bill C-5 is a step in the right direction.

However, I hope the government will actually listen to experts on Bill C-22 , which we debated on Tuesday, because it did not listen to experts with respect to Bill C-5 , which we are discussing today. (1150) [ English ] When the House was debating second reading of Bill C-5 , the member for Burnaby—Douglas asked if I thought the legislation went far enough in addressing the concerns of the Wells royal commission. I did not, and I do not. One concern I have with Bill C-5 is that it did not adopt recommendation 29 of the Wells commission report, which flowed from a terrible helicopter crash off Newfoundland.

That was already discussed a bit this morning. My hope was that when the bill went to committee there would be consideration given to an amendment to adopt recommendation 29, which called for a separate organization to look at the question of workers' health and safety, an organization solely dedicated to that absolutely vital task. Commissioner Wells testified at the committee last fall that he “felt that an independent safety authority was the best choice..”. Commissioner Wells went on to add that he did not think everyone would agree with the recommendation. That is reasonable.

He included a fallback position, which was to create a separate safety division within the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board. Of course, this legislation would also apply to the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board. While the fallback position was adopted, in my view it falls short of what is needed. It is yet another missed opportunity by this neo-Conservative government. Unfortunately, Bill C-5 was reported back to the House of Commons with only a few technical amendments which correct inaccurate wording in a number of clauses.

It was also very unfortunate, in my view, that the Conservatives on the committee would not support efforts to provide greater clarity on the word “danger” in the act. That word is particularly important, and the meaning of it is particularly important in this kind of legislation. Under this legislation, certain terms such as “danger” are not defined in this bill. They remain to be defined by federal regulation on the recommendation of the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Labour , and with the approval of provincial ministers.

In committee, I introduced a proposed amendment calling for consultations with the provinces and key stakeholders on the definition of “dangerous work”, something that we have heard is important. I felt it would coincide with the testimony we heard in committee about the importance of consulting on this question of the word “danger”. That is critical for all parts of the offshore oil and gas industry, and the men and women who work in our offshore. While this legislation does push the yardsticks and while it is a move in the right direction, it could have been better. It could have been strengthened.

It should have been amended. As legislators, that is our job. It is our job not only to examine these carefully, to look for ways to improve them, but also to hear the evidence, hear the experts, and reflect on that expert evidence and testimony and make the appropriate changes. We are not simply here to do whatever the kids in short pants in the Prime Minister 's Office tell us or order the Conservatives to do. We are often asked to strike a careful balance between economic success in the oil and gas sector, the rights of employees and, of course, environmental concerns.

Bill C-5 is one of the many tools to achieve this balance, and I believe the Canadian Parliament, including members in the House of Commons, ought to strive to set an example to the rest of the world by clearly indicating that we value human capital at least as much as the wealth we derive from our natural resources. That is why the Liberal Party has supported this bill. Bill C-5 will effectively solve the issue of jurisdiction surrounding occupational health and safety in Canada's offshore oil and gas industry.

It was not clear until now—which became very clear after the terrible helicopter accident off Newfoundland when it was unclear which level of government had responsibility and jurisdiction. This will solve that issue and that is important. That is an important step forward, which has taken over 10 years to realize. The legislation would also create a streamlined process for rectifying health and safety issues and to assign responsibility. That is important because we do not want to have any doubt about jurisdiction if there is an accident in the offshore.

An issue of the utmost importance is our capacity to respond to an accident or spill in the offshore. However, that is a debate for another day, and I hope we will have opportunities to do that. This legislation is focused on the right to a safe workplace. It is an important right and a right that all Canadians must enjoy. Many of us as Canadians, and certainly those of us as members of Parliament, have a very safe work environment and are very fortunate in the kind of work we do.

For the most part, it is indoor work and a lot of it is desk work or standing up work, but it sure is not in conditions some workers across this country face, by any means.

If we think of working outside on a cold day like this, or of the folks in Atlantic Canada—and I look across to my colleagues from New Brunswick and consider our families back home and other families in Atlantic Canada, digging out from a terrible storm and still experiencing terrible wind, some of them without power, and consider the folks from the power companies and snowplow drivers and others out there who are working to get things back to normal—we should feel pretty fortunate to be working in a place like this with the kind of jobs that we have.

Though a safe workplace is not the reality for all Canadians, governments have worked with stakeholder groups in the past to improve conditions faced by Canadians in their places of employment. (1155) [ Translation ] That, obviously, is incredibly important work. Bill C-5 is an example of these efforts—in this case, the joint efforts of the provincial and federal levels working together, which does not happen often enough. Indeed, this government is not known for working with provincial governments.

However, it is our collective responsibility, whether as a legislative body, employers or employees, or society as a whole, to ensure that the right to a safe work environment is respected. [ English ] It is absolutely vital. The conditions for employees on offshore drilling projects should be comparable to those on land-based projects. There is no question that a drilling rig, whether offshore or onshore, can be a very dangerous environment.

I think employees and their families can be confident that what is proposed in Bill C-5 , as far as it goes, would improve the health and safety regimes of our offshore oil and gas projects. However, members of my party believe we still need to ensure that the separation of health and safety concerns from those of production and economic viability occur. Justice Wells made that very clear in much more eloquent language than I. We recognize that these two issues are very different things, but one trumps the other, and health and safety comes first.

We need to make sure that, when necessary, those health and safety concerns are paramount, as they ought to be. Bill C-5 should guarantee that the proposed chief safety officer has powerful methods of inquiry to hold operators to account. A regime of self-regulation, in our view, would be insufficient. I have already said that we do not think the chief safety officer approach is necessarily ideal. There are other things that Commissioner Wells recommended, but since that is what we are going with, let us try to make it as strong as possible.

The chief safety officer must not be influenced in decision-making by concerns of economic viability or by political pressure, which should be obvious. This individual must be a champion of a healthy and safe environment for all employees who work in our offshore oil and gas industry, or in any of those kinds of projects. Bill C-5 has survived changes in governing parties at both the federal and provincial levels. It has received clear provincial support, and legislatures in both Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland and Labrador have given the bill's mirror legislation assent, in short order.

By supporting Bill C-5 , we have the opportunity to improve upon legislation that has already met some of the concerns of the provinces. If we take into account all the elements of employee health and safety, the original offshore accords, and Bill C-5 itself in those bills, this could provide the model for future negotiations between the federal government and other provinces, like Quebec for example, that are looking to develop their oil and gas sectors. Let me conclude by noting that while Bill C-5 is a step forward, we should recognize that more work needs to be done.

Hopefully, we will not have to wait another decade for that to occur. It is not new to Canadians that our country places great economic importance on the development of natural resources. Forest products, natural gas, hydro electricity, and oil and gas are cornerstones of our export market and contribute immensely to the creation of jobs, which, of course, we believe is very important. We want Canadians to have a good quality of life that comes with jobs and opportunity. However, let us make sure that those resources are developed in a responsible and sustainable way.

Let us recognize that occupational health and safety must be paramount.

(1200) Mrs. Kelly Block (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. member for his comments on this very important piece of legislation. I would like to reinforce the points that the member has made, in that both provinces have already given royal assent to their respective bills to enact these changes. They have been waiting patiently for Bill C-5 to pass through our Parliament for the new regime to come into force.

I want to confirm what I thought I heard the member say, that he and his colleagues will definitely allow for this legislation to finally come into force so that workers will not have to spend another day without these safety measures that Bill C-5 would bring. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for her question. However, as she heard from my speech, I do have some concerns about amendments that were not adopted by the committee and were not supported by her party. As I said, we think this legislation is important because it is a step in the right direction.

It moves the ball forward, even if it is not as good as we would like. Therefore, we are supporting the bill. We do not have any intention to slow it down. I should point out, of course, that the Conservative government certainly has the means to move legislation faster than it has moved this legislation. Not a week has gone by, that I can recall, in which we have not seen at least one motion of time allocation or closure by the Conservative government. I do not know if it has used it 7,000 times, but I know it is well over 50, even by last fall.

The Conservatives have used these measures far more than any other government in the history of this country. For them to talk about bills not moving fast enough is a little rich, but I appreciate the question. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Aubin (Trois-Rivières, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say. I have a question for him. While I am no expert in the offshore sector, it seems to me that 10 years is a bit long to take to come up with the bill that is before us today. Far be it from me to simplify the complexity of such an issue.

Since this began in 2001, when the Liberals were in power, would it not have been possible to at least establish the independent regulator, as suggested in Justice Wells' recommendation 29? Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. I was not involved in the natural resources file during the period in question. I know that the provincial governments and the federal government finally discussed these issues after some time. I do find it strange, and rather astounding, that it has been 10 years.

There are always various things at issue between the provincial governments and the federal government, and these complexities need to be discussed. I can understand that it might take two, three or four years, but 10 years is a very long time. I do not understand. Was it because of the change in governments? I do not know. (1205) [ English ] Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as always, the comments from the member for Halifax West and the perspective he brings to issues like this.

He spent some time sitting on the other side, so perhaps he can lend a bit of perspective to this particular issue. There are two things I am concerned about. Number one, which the member talked about, is that it took 13 years for the provincial and federal governments to finally come together and bring this bill forward, which is an awful delay. Number two, at the same time, there are steps being made and progress being made to strengthen health and safety rules as they relate to offshore development work.

Would the member not agree that it is likewise a serious deficiency in our ability to protect workers on the offshore, that the current government is continuing to hack and slash away at search and rescue capabilities; and that if, God forbid, there is ever any need, we have a shortage of search and rescue capabilities? Could the member could comment on that issue? Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, first, my understanding is that governments had been in discussion for 10 years on this legislation and that we have seen the same bill brought forward a few times now.

Therefore, it is surprising to me that the Conservative government did not bring it forward more expeditiously, to get it done. The Conservatives could have done that a number of times over the last eight years they have been in government. As I understand it, there were discussions going on, and I am not sure why it was not sooner than that, but that is my understanding and my recollection. However, on the question of search and rescue, the people I know who have some knowledge of search and rescue across the country have been very concerned about the Conservatives' attitude toward this area.

Whether it is in the offshore, in our North or on either of the coasts and throughout the country, we have not seen the kind of interest. We have seen cutbacks to search and rescue. We have a lot of people in Newfoundland and Labrador who are very concerned about the lack of effective search and rescue equipment in that region and throughout the country. My hon. colleague has raised a very important point. Mr. Scott Andrews (Avalon, Lib.) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague who attended the committee hearings a question.

There has been a lot of discussion about recommendation no. 29, the recommendation made by Chief Justice Wells in his inquiry. The government is acknowledging that it is not putting it in this bill. At committee, was it the stance of Chief Justice Wells that recommendation no. 29 was still an important recommendation? Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, Commissioner Wells certainly made it clear that he believed it was an important recommendation. He talked about the circumstances of his report. I thought he was a very impressive witness.

Many of us on the committee, in view of the work he did on that commission, felt a certain deference to his opinions. Nevertheless, the government has chosen not to adopt recommendation no. 29. I think that is unfortunate. In the future we ought to seriously look at separating that function of health and safety. Obviously, the government would not reconsider it now, at third reading of the bill. However, I hope the government would at least reflect on this question and look for ways to improve it in the future.

(1210) Mr. Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NDP) : Mr. Speaker, I want to go a little further on this whole question about how long it took to get to this stage because, unfortunately, we have had a number of disasters in our region that we can point to. There seems to be a pattern of delay before we implement the kind of legislation, rules, and enforcement regulations that we need to have in place to ensure that these things do not happen.

I wonder if my colleague from Nova Scotia, the member for Halifax West , would indicate to me what steps he and his government took when they were on the opposite side to correct these problems. Hon. Geoff Regan : Mr. Speaker, I know that the other parties like to go back eight, ten years, and so forth, and talk about what the Liberal government did at that time. It is quite a while ago now, so it is interesting that they continue to do that, but it is a good sign when they try to throw barbs in our direction and challenge us on things. They are certainly paying attention and must be concerned about our party.

The fact is, if we do go back that long, I was very engaged, particularly as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, with concerns about search and rescue and the Coast Guard. I very strongly supported measures to improve the situation for our Coast Guard. In fact, we announced funding for new Coast Guard vessels, which took quite a while for the following government to bring to fruition. Mr. Mike Allen (Tobique—Mactaquac, CPC) : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to follow some of my colleagues in the debate on Bill C-5 .

Having been a member of the natural resources committee for eight years, and having now left it, this was the last major piece of work I had the opportunity to work on with my colleagues from all parties. Unfortunately, I had moved prior to getting to clause-by-clause review, which would have been interesting. Nonetheless, I got a chance to listen to a lot of the testimony before committee. We had some great witnesses. We had very cordial discussion and a lot of good feedback. It was a good committee experience. What I am going to talk about today is the importance of the offshore.

I will spend a few moments on that. Then what I would like to do is to talk about what led to Bill C-5 and why it is important. Then I would like to talk about some of the major things the bill does and some of the comments made by Justice Wells. Certainly, as a lot of people have said in testimony earlier today, we know how important natural resources are to our country, and specifically the east coast.

As my colleague, the member for Halifax West , just pointed out a minute ago, we have a lot of people working on the offshore and the potential for expansion of that resource opportunity not only helps the folks in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, but also P.E.I. and New Brunswick, whether it be by providing services or by labourers actually going there. In some cases, it is a lot better trip for some of our families to be able to go to an east coast location, as opposed to travelling west.

For that reason, we want to continue to ensure that Canada's natural resource sectors remain open to investment that is market oriented and in the long-term interests of Canadians. We will ensure that the jobs, opportunities, and economic growth created by our natural wealth are available to all Canadians. In the Atlantic offshore, this wealth is chiefly in the energy sector, particularly oil and natural gas. The strength of Canada's energy sector is well established, but as strong as Canada's energy sector is today, it offers even greater potential for the future.

Canadians living in Atlantic Canada already know what a difference a strong energy industry can make to communities' quality of life. Offshore oil and gas has literally transformed the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, in 2011, the energy sector in Newfoundland and Labrador employed nearly 5,000 people and accounted for roughly one-third of provincial nominal GDP. Between 1997 and 2013, the province collected about $7.8 billion in statutory royalties from offshore oil and gas. Now, as we begin 2014, the future is even brighter.

The offshore energy sector in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia is still growing and the industry continues to invest billions of dollars in new energy projects. Our government supports energy infrastructure projects that will create jobs and generate economic growth for Canadians, but it will do so only if these projects can be proven to be safe for Canadians and only after we have the proper reviews. Our commitment to responsible resource development is made for environmental reasons as well as economic ones.

Our plan will ensure that there is stronger protection by introducing tough new financial penalties for companies that do no comply with environmental regulations, and establishes new measures to strengthen Canada's world class pipeline and marine safety regimes. However, we have to remember that one of the major regulatory items is to protect people through a rigorous offshore safety regime. That is why we introduced Bill C-5 , to ensure that offshore industries can carry out their activities safely. I would like to read into the record some testimony from Mr.

Jeff Labonté, the director general of the energy safety and security branch at the Department of Natural Resources. He said: The work on the legislative package before Parliament got under way almost a dozen years ago. It was following an accident in Nova Scotia in which a worker in a workplace was killed.

In that particular accident, the accord acts originally separated operational safety, the operations of the technical units and things that are happening in the offshore, which was imbedded within the accord acts, and occupational health and safety as a separate area which fell under the provincial jurisdiction. All of a sudden, we had a grey area here where it was hard to determine who was actually responsible, what would happen and who would actually regulate this going forward. That led to a 12-year process and our Bill C-5.

(1215) The bill is approximately 260 to 270 pages long. Members who were on the committee and actually went through the review know that roughly 200 of those pages took occupational health and safety regulations out and put them into the accord acts. It was to mirror the legislation between the provinces and the federal government. We want the offshore industries to abide by the most stringent standards. We need to identify and clarify things, and that was the reason we did that. Interestingly enough, some of the earlier comments were about why this took so long. It started in 2002 and it was a 12-year process.

A lot of us in the House, even if we have only been here a short period of time, understand that sometimes it can take a while to get federal-provincial deals negotiated. What ended up happening is that it went through a period until about 2007, when there was a realization that further work was needed on the governance aspect of the bill. It had to go back, and obviously there were a lot of iterations between the provinces and the federal government to make sure that the legislation was mirrored properly. Those things took some time.

We had some governmental issues with respect to the minority governments that happened during those times. I believe it was under an NDP government in Nova Scotia that the legislation passed, and a PC government in Newfoundland. They are now waiting for us to do our process with Bill C-5 . The accord acts already provide the regulatory cornerstone for all oil and gas activities in the Atlantic offshore.

They give the independent regulators, the two offshore boards we have been talking about this morning, the legal authority to regulate oil and gas activities on behalf of the Governments of Canada, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. They clearly establish the health and safety requirements within the accord acts. For the essential matters of occupational health and safety, and operational safety in the offshore, Bill C-5 fully clarifies the roles and responsibilities of all concerned parties, governments, regulators, employers, and workers.

The legislation also has other practical benefits and gives new powers to the offshore inspectors to further enhance safety. For example, inspectors will now be authorized to inspect anything, take samples, and meet privately with individuals. Further, inspectors will now have the power to conduct compliance audits on the vessels used to transport workers, and if the workers themselves have any safety concerns, Bill C-5 allows them to refuse to be transported to the offshore sites. I just want to speak to the issue of the chief safety officer's power. It has been strengthened.

In my experience in construction projects before coming into this area, it was always my understanding, whenever I went to a construction site, that the chief safety officer had full ability to shut a site down. They could do that carte blanche. That is independence. Even if those safety officers actually reported to project managers, they really had a higher calling and a higher power. This safety officer, referring to some of the testimony from Mr. Jeff Labonté, said: The final area that I will cover is that of the chief safety officer.

First, to ensure that safety considerations are always represented, the legislation proposes that the position of the chief safety officer can never be held by a CEO of the board. In addition, a chief safety officer would have to review and provide written recommendations related to safety on all operational authorizations. This would formalize a process that both boards have already been following and is a practice of ensuring that safety is a priority. Chief safety officers would also be granted the power to allow regulatory substitutions.

As everyone knows, when we start talking about these regulatory substitutions, technology moves very fast in the offshore environment. For example, if a new piece of equipment comes out that is going to make workers safer, a chief safety officer would have the ability to authorize its approval to substitute it for something already out there. Those are important things to make sure that our workers are safe, which this legislation and the regulations keep up. During his appearance at the natural resources committee in December, Justice Wells spoke about the legislation. He said:

(1220) Somebody has worked hard—more than one person, I suspect—on this bill. I know that it's been under consideration for a number of years. Quite honestly, I think it's a good job and I think it will help to formalize some of the concepts that people knowledgeable about the industry and the regulatory people have thought about for some time. To see it enshrined—I hope to see it enshrined—in legislation is a good thing. A couple of things impressed me most. One is that the bill talks about and mandates the involvement of workers in the processes of safety.

That was something that was important to me during the two years and three or four months that I was the inquiry commissioner. Justice Wells was very clear in the committee that he was pleased with the offshore health and safety legislation. He was also clear that good has come of the government's adoption of his recommendations. We also talked at