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.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
3:50 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
(Amendment withdrawn)
Thank you.
In that case, then, we can lump clauses 6, 7, 8.... No?
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
Okay. Shall clause 6 carry?
(Clause 6 agreed to)
(On clause 7)
Go ahead.
3:50 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Clause 7 deals with liability and the minimum insurance level. What we heard in committee and from witnesses is in regard to the class 1 liability. We asked to have the numbers for class 1 insurance coverage. What we understand is that right now it's more than $1 billion. We heard numbers in the range of $1.5 billion for CN and CP, so we asked the CTA, which was here, for clarification. Unfortunately, we were told that those numbers are proprietary information, so we couldn't get them.
Again, I think we did the ask the minister for some of the information regarding that calculation. There's a lack of information in terms of how we came up with those numbers for insurance.
Again, let me be clear. We are in support of having a minimum liability coverage insurance, but we're concerned about the fact that maybe CN, CP, or class 1 railways will have to pay less or will have less insurance than what they currently have. Has Transport Canada looked at that issue? Are we giving a free pass to class 1 railways?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
The insurance requirements are based on risk assessment and historical accident costs. The objective was to share accountability between shippers and railways for the transportation of designated dangerous goods. The amounts are set based on risk, and that's where the $1 billion comes from.
With respect to what the railways carry now, it is confidential information. I guess I would say that our assessment is that $1 billion currently.... Well, I'll say that there have been no rail accidents that have exceeded that level of insurance at this stage, and we believe, given the data we had, that it is sufficient to cover the vast majority of rail accidents.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
When the minister came to the committee, I asked her about Lac-Mégantic, because a lot of legislation came after the Lac-Mégantic disaster. Does Transport Canada have a number in terms of costs for Lac-Mégantic?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, we don't have a cost. I don't know that a final cost has been determined for the Lac-Mégantic accident at this point.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Has Transport Canada considered having unlimited liability for class 1 railways?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
In terms of the policy direction, it was to share accountability between shippers and railways, and unlimited liability would be inconsistent with that.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
I understand that point.
Also, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs came to the committee and spoke about the need for funds for training. It has made a recommendation to this committee that the disaster relief fund be used to pay for training and to pay to help out municipalities. I know that there's a working group right now, but has that been considered? Or would it be possible in the future to use that fund in order to pay for training for first responders?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
That wasn't contemplated as part of this fund. It was for paying damages for accidents to victims of those accidents.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Is it possible with the mechanism that is in place for the fund to use that amount later on?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
There is no provision in the legislation currently that allows that money to be used other than for the purposes that are defined in the act, and that is damages associated with accidents.
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
If we were to be able to use part of that fund for training, we would have legislative amendments to the bill, I guess. Or would it be something that can be done through other regulations?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
It could not be done through regulations.
April 30th, 2015 / 3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
On that, if I may, Mr. Chair, I'm just following up. I think this is a clause 7 issue as well. When the head of the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs was here, he alluded to proposals in this regard that had been made to the government and had been declined.
Are you aware of those proposals? Do you know which proposals he was referring to?
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
No, I don't.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
He said that he made a formal submission to Transport Canada that had been declined because it didn't meet certain criteria. It was to raise the very revenue he was looking for: the training funding.
3:55 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with that.