Bill C-5 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Offshore Health and Safety Act
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
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedOct. 24, 2013
- Debated in principleNov. 26, 2013
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberMay 12, 2014
- Passed the second chamberJune 12, 2014
- Became lawJune 18, 2014
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- David WellsSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Élaine Michaudjoins colleagues in supporting the bill at third reading
- Robert Chisholmexplicitly indicated support for the legislation and measures after provincial mirror bills passed.
- Mike Allendescribes bill as last major committee work with good testimony and feedback from all parties.
- Kevin LamoureuxExpresses long-standing Liberal support for protective measures and pleasure at resource development benefits.
- Geoff Regancalls Bill C-5 a case in point of legislation that positively impacts Canadians' lives.
- Pierre Jacobcalls it an important measure long called for by NDP
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 24 October 2013, the Minister of Natural Resources introduced 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 (Offshore Health and Safety Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. This enactment amends the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act and the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act (the “Accord Acts”) in order to increase the level of safety and transparency of offshore petroleum activities. The main purpose of the amendments is to establish a new occupational health and safety regime in the offshore areas. In addition, it amends the Accord Acts to, most notably, • ensure that occupational health and safety officers, special officers, conservation officers and operational safety officers have the same powers for the administration and enforcement of the Accord Acts; • clarify that the new occupational health and safety regime applies to the transportation of persons who are in transit to, from or between workplaces in the offshore…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That the Bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. · 2013-11-26 · Passed
How it changed on the way
82% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (94,683 words introduced, 81,945 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill passed with its main goal of creating a unified offshore occupational health and safety regime unchanged. Technical updates, corrected bill references, and minor wording adjustments were made during committee and Senate review.
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text relies heavily on subjective phrases such as 'reason to believe', 'considers appropriate' and 'reasonable grounds' that leave key decisions open to argument. Defined terms and fixed periods exist but are outnumbered by discretionary powers given to officials and courts.
Open to argument
“the Board considers appropriate”
This phrase lets the Board extend compliance periods without an objective test.“has reasonable grounds to believe”
This standard is subjective and invites disputes over what facts justify entry or seizure.“in the opinion of the Committee”
Jurisdiction and legal questions are referred based on the Committee's own view rather than fixed criteria.“likely to result in serious bodily injury”
The threshold for stopping operations uses a predictive and open-ended test.
Clear-cut
“within 90 days after the day on which the notice is given”
A fixed calendar period removes discretion over timing.
Discretion. Ministers, the Board, safety officers and courts decide qualifications, extensions, orders, warrants and remedies using their own assessments of appropriateness, necessity and reasonable grounds.
Challenging the law itself. Broad entry, search and seizure powers resting on 'reasonable grounds' and officer opinion could be challenged under section 8 of the Charter as unreasonable.
Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily argue that an officer lacked reasonable grounds or that a measure was not 'appropriate' under the subjective standards used throughout the text.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.