Evidence of meeting #54 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
We'll start our meeting. We have a number of people with us.
Thank you very much for being here. I'm sorry about the delay with the votes going on. We were going to delay the start, but that has changed. With that, we're going to go into our bill and go through clause by clause.
If it's okay, if I get approval from the committee, we know there are a couple of amendments, but I think that if it's possible we could lump most of the clauses together. Is everyone okay with that?
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
That's fine.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. Good.
Under clause-by-clause consideration, pursuant to Standing Order 75(1) consideration of clause 1, the short title, is postponed, and the chair calls clause 2. Have I approval to group clauses 2 to 5 inclusive?
(Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to)
(On clause 6)
The reason I'm asking the clerk about this, Mr. Mai, is that a couple of your amendments, as I think you probably realize, totally change the intent of the bill and are inadmissible. They can't be used, but amendment NDP-1 is eligible, so we'll go through it.
Does everybody want me to read the whole amendment?
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
I believe everyone has it in front of them. Is there discussion on the amendment?
Mr. Mai.
3:40 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Amendment NDP-1 is further to the witness who came from the Railway Association and talked about the Essex Terminal Railway. What we understand is that some of the railways don't do the same type of carrying of dangerous goods or carrying crude oil that the other railway companies do, and there are some concerns that they would also be affected by the coverage of insurance.
In that case, what we heard from the witness is that it would really affect the company's business. There is a concern about some sort of unintended consequences. We obviously believe in the principle that the polluter pays, and we believe that companies should have minimum insurance, but we're concerned about companies that are not the regular companies carrying dangerous goods.
My question may be for Transport Canada officials.
First of all, thank you for being here, for coming in and withstanding the heat with us.
Is there a way for a company to get an exemption from the application of this bill in the case of a business that is really different from other railway companies? Is there a way other than a legislative change?
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Lenore Duff Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The legislation provides for a regulatory authority that allows the insurance amounts and criteria—for example, the types and volumes of good hauled—to be amended by regulation over time, but there is no exemption from the legislation for the application of insurance.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Would it be possible later on to have regulations that would deal with companies that are falling through the cracks in this bill? I don't know if you've read the amendment that was proposed.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Do you have any comments on that amendment? Do you find it applicable?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
In terms of the amendment as it's written, it's broad in terms of how it would exempt the railway entirely from any insurance requirements, so it wouldn't be in keeping with the objective of the bill.
My other comment is that there are specific circumstances that various railways have, but this is based on an assessment of risk and what goods they actually carry. That's how their insurance requirements would be determined.
The railway you're referring to does carry a level of dangerous goods that would require that insurance and operates through the City of Windsor level crossings, so it does carry some element of risk with respect to its goods. But there is a regulatory authority that it could be adjusted given changing circumstances or to account for specific issues that might arise over time.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Okay. Thank you for the answer.
I think we've asked to have the risk assessment, for instance, because unfortunately when we look at the bill, we haven't seen where the numbers come from and where the studies were done regarding the bill. So that is a concern.
I think the concern with proposing an amendment that actually opens too wide a door is also your concern. It might bring in something that is too large. Are you telling us we can have regulations that will actually deal with specific cases in which, for instance, the risk is not as high?
3:45 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, I'm saying there is a regulatory authority that provides for regulations. I can't comment on whether there might be or not.
3:45 p.m.
NDP
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
Mr. Chair, I have a couple of items that are important.
First of all, I'm a little surprised, after hearing the opposition's concern about exemptions from railway operating rules, that they might now be asking for an exemption from higher liability rules for short lines. I don't think that's consistent with improving rail safety and it's certainly not consistent with liability and compensation after the fact. If I understood officials correctly, this amendment wouldn't exempt them from the proposed new legislative rules, it would exempt them from existing rules around insurance. That's a dramatic step back for rail safety.
As I understand it, and I've done a little bit of digging on this, Essex Terminal Railway, which does carry sufficient dangerous goods, does so through a community of 200,000 people with homes on either side of the railway. They have had 11 accidents at crossings with 14 accidents between 2000 and 2013, so it's not that there is no risk with this particular railway. Understanding that, we certainly wouldn't want to exempt them from existing insurance, but I don't think we should be looking at exempting from new rules that would strengthen liability and compensation, so we're opposed to the motion.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
I'd like to dig into this a little further.
I don't know about Essex, and that is the kind of case in point, but the broader position laid out in the testimony was that not all short lines are the same.
I'm wondering if the regulatory authority you're referring to would allow for a finer gradation of short lines, for example. The point that Essex made was that they never go above, whatever it was, 10 kilometres an hour, or something like that.
Does the regulatory authority allow for distinctions at some point in time between different short lines? Could a new category of short line be created with different liability and insurance burdens?
3:50 p.m.
Alain Langlois General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
Yes. The regulatory authorities found in proposed subsection 92(4) of the legislation allow for regulations that would replace or add to the class of operation that is found in the schedule. As long as we can create a class of operation and can create a different class depending on the type of operation of the short line, then yes, it's possible under the regulatory authority.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Kellway NDP Beaches—East York, ON
With that then one could, theoretically or hypothetically, through the regulatory mechanism, change liability and insurance coverage required for a different class?
3:50 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
Yes. One could set a different amount of liability per class of operation.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
On the amendments, again, one of the problems we had is not having enough information. As you know, Mr. Chair, we had two meetings. We had one with the minister and the officials and the other one with some of the witnesses.
I will not move the amendment.
With the regulatory provisions that might come after, I trust that the officials and Transport Canada will actually look at specific issues and maybe make regulations that are more appropriate than just a legislative change is.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
The clerk has informed me that you would have to withdraw it. I believe that's what you're doing anyway, correct?