In answer to your first question about a moral obligation, I will simply remind you of what happened in Canada approximately 20 years ago with the tainted blood scandal. In that specific case, civil liability on the part of the Department of Health was never established in the federal government court.
However, at the same time, there was a collective realization after political pressure that it was unacceptable that the victims of contaminated blood be left to deal with complex legal procedures that would never reach their conclusion because the victims would die before that happened. In the end, moral obligation and national solidarity dictated the implementation of a compensation regime that, without necessarily fully compensating victims because of the thresholds set out in legislation, provided for at least faster payments of reasonable compensation.
I feel, without wanting to imply federal responsibility in this catastrophe, that the Lac-Mégantic tragedy was a wake-up call for everyone. We realized just how much railway transportation had evolved and how necessary it was that insurance limits, and monitoring and other measures, be updated. This tragedy happened and it led to 47 deaths.
As I already stated, compensation costs would not be particularly high for government if, on the grounds of national solidarity, it provided partial, not full compensation for the victims, as civil courts do. The government could ensure that these individuals not have to wait 15 years before they receive any compensation. That is my answer to your first question.
The second question is an interesting one because the Transportation Agency was the last to be added to the list of respondents in the class action suit in Quebec brought by representatives of the victims. Is the Transportation Agency legally liable for what happened?
Obviously one cannot accuse the Transportation Agency on the grounds that there were insufficient regulations. That is a political issue and, fortunately, judges do not get involved in political issues, in other words, which regulations should be adopted.
Did the agency improperly enforce current regulations? That was the argument in the amendment put forward regarding the CTA's liability. I see absolutely no evidence on one side or the other that would indicate to me that the CTA wilfully turned a blind eye to how the regulations were enforced, that they were complacent and that that was the cause of the derailment in question.
We can certainly agree that the legislation was insufficient with respect to the current liability insurance coverage regulations that provide for sufficient coverage, when we know that some of these companies were insured for less than $100 million and even considerably less than $50 million. Now that we know the potential consequences of these accidents given how dangerous these products are, obviously the law is inadequate. The problem is that this still does not deal with the civil liability of the state.
