Bill C-52 (Historical)

Safe and Accountable Rail Act

An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act

This enactment amends the Canada Transportation Act to strengthen the liability and compensation regime for federally regulated railway companies by establishing minimum insurance levels for railway companies and a supplementary, shipper-financed compensation fund to cover damages resulting from railway accidents involving the transportation of certain dangerous goods.
Among other things, the amendments
(a) establish minimum insurance levels for freight railway operations based on the type and volume of goods that are transported;
(b) require the holder of a certificate of fitness to maintain the liability insurance coverage required by that Act, and to notify the Canadian Transportation Agency without delay if its insurance coverage is affected;
(c) establish that a railway company is liable, without proof of fault or negligence, subject to certain defences, for losses, damages, costs and expenses resulting from a railway accident involving crude oil or other designated goods, up to the level of the company’s minimum liability insurance coverage; and
(d) establish a compensation fund in the Accounts of Canada, financed by levies on shippers, to cover the losses, damages, costs and expenses resulting from a railway accident involving crude oil or other designated goods that exceed the minimum liability insurance coverage.
The enactment also amends the Railway Safety Act to, among other things,
(a) allow a province or municipality that incurs costs in responding to a fire that it is of the opinion was the result of a railway company’s railway operations to apply to the Canada Transportation Agency to have those costs reimbursed by the railway company;
(b) clarify the Governor in Council’s power to make regulations respecting the restriction and prevention of access to land on which a line of railway is situated, including by means of fences or signs on that land or on land adjoining it;
(c) authorize a railway safety inspector who is satisfied that there is an immediate threat to the safety or security of railway operations to order a person or company to take any measure that the inspector specifies to mitigate the threat;
(d) authorize the Minister to require, by order, a company, road authority or municipality to follow the procedures or take the corrective measures that the Minister specifies if the Minister considers it necessary in the interests of safe railway operations;
(e) provide the Governor in Council with a regulation-making power regarding the submission of information that is relevant to the safety of railway operations by any person, other than the Minister to any person;
(f) authorize the Minister to order a company that is implementing its safety management system in a manner that risks compromising railway safety to take the necessary corrective measures; and
(g) declare that certain regulations and orders that were made under the Railway Act are deemed to have had effect from the day on which they were made under that Act and that those regulations and orders continue to have effect from that day as if they were made under the Railway Safety Act.

Safe and Accountable Rail Act

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Minister of Transport]

moved that Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in my place to begin the second reading of Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act.

Since arriving at Transport Canada, I have made safety my absolute top priority.

As minister, I have borne witness to events that have led us to examine the safety regime and the manner in which railways and shippers are held accountable when things go wrong. Things can and do go wrong.

The most notable event without question was the explosion of railway cars in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, on July 6, 2013, and the 47 people who died that day, a day that will be inscribed in the memory of all members of this House. It has galvanized our determination to find better ways to protect Canadians and our communities, and better ways to safely move the goods on which the Canadian economy depends.

We are committed to achieving that, and we have taken decisive measures to do so.

Very soon after the tragedy, we introduced measures to address safety issues. We established two-person minimum crews for locomotives pulling dangerous goods, and we slowed the speed of all of those trains. We adjusted the specifications of tank cars, and immediately took the least crash-resistant cars off the rails. We strengthened regulations and we increased inspections. We also took steps to address longer-term issues. We have been working with municipalities, first responders, railways and shippers to strengthen emergency response across this country.

In August, the Transportation Safety Board issued its final investigation report on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, and again we responded. Last October, I introduced further measures, including an emergency directive on how trains are to be braked, the accurate classification of dangerous goods and steps to improve training of all rail employees.

We also introduced measures to make safety management systems more effective in ways that I will discuss in more detail, but I want to emphasize this: this government has implemented every single one of the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board in response to Lac-Mégantic. We have learned the lessons inherent in past tragedies, and our commitment to safety is absolute.

The bill before us introduces further steps to strengthen the safety regime of Canada's railways and ensure the accountability of railways in the case of accidents. It moves on three different fronts. The first is prevention. Amendments would strengthen the regulatory regime to reduce the likelihood of rail accidents. The second is communication for effective response. The bill would allow for requirements related to information sharing between railways and municipalities to improve the response in case of emergencies. The third is accountability. The bill would take steps to ensure railways have enough insurance to pay for damages. It would also make crude oil shippers accountable for what they put on the rails by ensuring they pay into a supplementary fund that would be available when an accident involves crude.

The bill before us would amend two pieces of legislation: the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Taken together, these amendments represent a significant step in improving the overall safety in Canada's railways, especially in the transportation of dangerous goods. These amendments respond to the recommendations of the Transportation Safety Board in response to Lac-Mégantic, and the 2013 fall report of the Auditor General. We welcomed all their input.

Let me begin with prevention and the features of the bill that would help prevent rail accidents. The Railway Safety Act sets out a regulatory framework to address the safety, the security and the environmental impact of rail. Under the act, federally regulated railways are responsible for the safety of their rail line infrastructure, of their railway equipment and of their operations.

Transport Canada monitors the railway's compliance with the act and with the department's rules, regulations and engineering standards.

Transport Canada also conducts audits and inspections to ensure that the overall safety of railway operations is maintained. Canadians can be assured that Transport Canada does not and will not hesitate to take appropriate action to address safety concerns. The bill before us today would provide new authorities to the safety inspectors and to the Minister of Transport to do just that.

Under this bill, a new provision would give the Minister of Transport the authority to order a railway to take a corrective action, to stop any action, to follow any procedure or to suspend operation. In other words, the minister would be able to intervene directly should there be a concern for safety.

A Transport Canada railway safety inspector would be given broader authority to issue notices and orders to any person or entity, including railway companies, road authorities and municipalities, relating to safe railway operations. By increasing the authorities for the minister and railway safety inspectors, we would increase Transport Canada's ability to administer the Railway Safety Act and the regulations, the rules and the engineering standards made under the act. These are all powerful tools and they would increase the regulation of oversight of railway companies that Transport Canada regulates and would ensure that railways operate according to the standards established in the act.

However, I would like to emphasize that some of the most important steps that railways make to improve safety and safety culture are not the results of the provisions of the Railway Safety Act but are contained within their own safety management systems or SMS. I want to be clear on this point. A safety management system is not deregulation and it is not self-regulation; it is an internationally recognized, science-based process that has been used in rail transportation since 2001. SMS do not replace rules or regulations or inspections. They provide a systemic approach to safety that incorporates specific regulations and proactive measures to identify hazards and to mitigate risks.

Transport Canada has created regulatory requirements around safety management systems and the bill before us would strengthen the department's oversight. Under the amendments, I believe that if a railway company were implementing its safety management system in a way that could compromise railway safety, I could take that company to corrective action by placing an order. With this additional oversight, railways would have further incentive to ensure that they manage the risks associated with operating a railway.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the elements of this bill that would help quicken emergency response through closer communication and co-operation between railways and municipalities through which they pass. Under this bill, Transport Canada would have new authority to regulate the sharing of information, of documents and of records from one party to another other than the department, for example, from a railway company to a municipality.

Canada's history is one of towns and cities that sprang up along the rail lines in this country. We have to ensure that the people who live in these areas are safe. The collaboration between railways and communities on such matters would no longer be at the discretion of the railways. It would form part of a mandatory regulatory framework. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has been an outspoken champion for better communication and more transparency between railways and municipalities on safety-related issues, and we thank its members for their input and advice.

In addition to prevention and effective communication for improved response, the third pillar of the bill involves accountability. By this, I mean the need to ensure those responsible for operating the railway system and those who put high-risk goods into the system would have the financial resources they need to compensate victims and to clean up communities if things go wrong. This is not just an issue that results from major tragedies such as what happened in Lac-Mégantic, although I will return to that in a moment.

More frequently, municipalities are called to respond to incidents of lesser impact, such as putting out fires that may have been caused as a result of a railway operation. Under the current regime, these costs are often borne by the provinces and municipalities and ultimately their taxpayers. However, under the bill before us, if a province or municipality believes that a fire was started as a result of railway operations, it can apply to the Canadian Transportation Agency for reimbursement. The amendment would give the agency authority to determine if indeed the fire was caused by railway operations, and would be able to determine the costs incurred in putting out the fire and require the railway to reimburse the province or municipality for those costs.

This amendment and the others I have spoken to today are changes to the Railway Safety Act that promote a safe and secure, efficient and environmentally responsible transportation system in Canada. The amendments would give Transport Canada more authority and oversight in rail operations, bring in a new era of communication between railways and municipalities in an effort to improve emergency preparedness, and help make the railways accountable for the costs incurred from fighting fires that result from their operations.

However, another important issue of accountability became all too apparent in the aftermath of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. The cost of the disaster in terms of the lives lost was incalculable. They are beyond words. However, there were calculable loss costs as well, and the costs of putting out the fire and clearing the debris, cleaning up the effects on the environment, and, of course, the costs of rebuilding a community and compensating, truly shattered lives. No one wants to anticipate such a disaster, but any responsible company must prepare for such eventualities by carrying sufficient insurance to cover the costs.

Under the Canada Transportation Act, federally regulated railways must carry insurance, but the Lac-Mégantic tragedy has proven that the measures now in place are simply not sufficient. Therefore, the bill before us identifies specific levels of insurance that must be carried, depending upon the type and volume of dangerous goods that the railway transports. These insurance requirements would come into force 12 months after the bill's royal assent, giving the insurance market the necessary time to adjust, and railways enough time to obtain the necessary insurance, which is usually purchased on an annual policy.

Class 1 railways carry significant quantities of dangerous goods, and they will be required to hold $1 billion in insurance. The House will be reassured to know that both CN and CP customarily carry more insurance than that. At the other end of the spectrum, railways carrying little or no dangerous goods would be required to hold $25 million in insurance. For short-line railways carrying higher amounts of dangerous goods, there would be an initial requirement to hold either $50 million or $125 million in insurance. One year later, those levels would increase to $100 million and $250 million respectively. This phase-in period would allow short-line railways time to adjust to the new requirements. The agency would be able to make inquiries to determine whether railways are maintaining the correct amount of insurance, and must revoke or suspend the certificate of fitness of any railway that fails to comply.

The agency can also enforce insurance requirements through administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000, and there is more. Unfortunately, there is always the possibility and potential for a tragedy to exceed the ability of a railway's third-party insurance to cover the damages, so crude oil shippers must also share in the responsibility that comes with the transport of their dangerous goods. For those reasons, the bill would also create a supplemental fund that would be financed by levies on crude oil shippers, in the amount of $1.65 for every tonne of crude that is shipped. If the damages caused by a catastrophic crude oil accident were more than a railway company's insurance could cover, the fund would be there to cover the cost, not the taxpayers.

This is consistent with the polluter pays principle and is similar to the approach taken in marine transportation; the costs associated with an incident are shared by industry.

Crude oil shippers are included in the amendments before us today, but Transport Canada is looking at the possibility of expanding the regime to cover industries that ship other dangerous goods. In this way, we promote a shared accountability between rail carriers and the shippers of dangerous goods to ensure that victims and taxpayers are fully protected from bearing the costs of rail accidents.

Our goal is to ensure that communities, citizens, and taxpayers are protected in the event of an incident. The polluter will pay to clean up and provide compensation. We support a competitive rail sector and the resource economy that brings jobs to Canadians, but when it comes to safety in the transportation system, communities and citizens will always come first.

The measures in this bill come in addition to the steps the government has already taken to improve the rail safety regime. I would point out that there is a private member's bill that has been tabled to amend the Railway Safety Act, and I would like to commend the work of our colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Her private member's bill, Bill C-627, is also designed to provide greater protection to persons and property from railway operations.

The government supports this bill, and I wish to assure the House that we have coordinated the amendments in the bill before us to ensure that both bills will be harmonized when they reach royal assent. This is the customary way to give effect to two bills and will result in both bills having equal and consistent impact on the Railway Safety Act.

Railway operators and Transport Canada have taken many measures to improve rail safety, and this has reduced accident rates over the past several years. However, the amount of dangerous goods and other commodities moving by rail is increasing, and it will continue to grow. We need proper oversight to reduce accidents. We need better communication between railways and municipalities to provide more effective response, and we need a stronger liability and compensation regime in the event of an accident.

The bill addresses each of these areas. It introduces substantial changes to the regimes for both rail safety, and liability and compensation. In the last Speech from the Throne, this government committed to drawing upon the lessons of the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic to make shippers and rail companies accountable for rail safety.

With this bill, we are fulfilling that commitment.

Our system of transportation safety is strong, but it can be improved. By strengthening the safety, liability, and compensation regimes, we will improve public confidence in the rail industry. Above all, we will underscore that the safety and the security of Canadians remain the top priority of Transport Canada.

We have put in place many rail safety initiatives, through directives, orders, and regulations within the existing legislation framework.

This bill will enable us to take further measures.

I hope hon. members share my sense of urgency that we get this done, and that they join me in supporting this extremely important bill.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is a step in the right direction.

After Lac-Mégantic, we saw the impact of a company not having sufficient liability insurance. We have also seen the impact of not having a fund to help families and municipalities when they have to deal with the cleanup.

I would like to hear from the minister. When the minister tabled the bill, we heard talk about $250 million regarding the disaster relief fund. I would like to know whether or not that is a cap. Has the government decided to put a cap on that fund? If it is a cap, why is it capped at $250 million?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his support in our bringing forward this legislation.

There has been a notional amount to which the fund has been pegged in order to share capitalization. Much like in the ship-source oil pollution fund, we have set a limit in terms of the levies coming in to make sure there is a certain amount of money available.

That being said, if there ever is a case where that fund is exhausted, on top of the insurance, there is power within this act for the government to assess another levy in order to bring that fund back up to the amount it needs to be in order to ensure that taxpayers are not ultimately on the hook for the costs and that it truly is the polluter pays principle.

There is a limit on the capitalization of the fund, but beyond that there is the ability for us to go back and extract that. It would be the consolidated revenue fund that would take over if need be, but we have the ability to get that money back from the railway and from the shippers.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the issues that concerns a number of the residents in the riding that I represent, and in fact all of the downtown residents, is the level crossings. In a dense urban area where many of these trains travel, including the train from Lac-Mégantic which came through the downtown, level crossings are still the defining characteristic of rail crossings in Toronto and across the country. There are thousands of them.

My understanding is that there is a budget of only $10 million a year to transition the level crossings into rail underpasses or overpasses. Is the government considering increasing the funds available to cities and municipalities to make the rail lines safer as it brings in stronger safety regulations?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would implore the members of the House to make their municipalities aware of the grade crossing separation fund that is available. Unfortunately, it was not fully subscribed to last year.

Ironically, one would think that it should be available and people would take it up. The money is there in order to make sure we have participation by both rail and the municipality, and the federal government has its piece through this fund. I encourage people to make the application.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. minister has put great effort into improving rail safety, and I commend the steps that have been taken. I am not convinced that we have done enough yet. However, we know we are moving a lot of goods by rail, and it is focusing on the dangers of those goods.

I want to ask the minister about the definition of crude oil in the bill. It lumps together different kinds of products that have widely different risks. We know that the Lac-Mégantic disaster involved Bakken shale from North Dakota, which was highly volatile. At the other end of the spectrum, we have conventional crude oil which is not nearly as volatile.

I am wondering how we could better differentiate and if operationally there are ways to do that. Certainly when shipping diluent to northern Alberta, to stir it into bitumen, diluent itself is a hazardous material, even though shipping bitumen as a solid would not be. These are the kinds of distinctions that are ignored in the current definition.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the hon. member to proposed section 87 of the Canada Transportation Act, under clause 4 of Bill C-52, where we give the definition of crude oil. I can assure the member that there was a lot of discussion with respect to that with Transport Canada officials. Where we landed is where we list it here, which is in compliance with the United Nations designation and classifications.

We will always make sure we are getting the appropriate capture with respect to crude oil to ensure it is part of the shippers' fund. We cast the net quite widely in this case, but if there are any specific concerns that the member may have with respect to that, I will ask her to bring it up for Transport Canada officials, through me, and we will be able to get you the appropriate answer.

My understanding is that we threw the net widely in order to capture the entire definition in accordance with the United Nations regulations.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I would remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's speech very carefully. As the minister well knows, in my region we have had three derailments recently: one in Hornepayne and two in Gogama. The last one in Gogama was particularly concerning because of the tankers that spilled into the Mattagami River near the fish spawning grounds. A lot of work has gone into making sure that we have a healthy fish population, not just for first nation people but for all tourists and outfitters who live along the Mattagami River.

Given the ecological damage that has been done to the Mattagami River, I would like to ask the minister if she can update the House on the remediation plans in place and what she thinks it is going to take in the long term to restore the fishery habitats that have been damaged on the Mattagami River.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, CN has made a commitment to the member's colleague with respect to the cleaning up of that river to 99.9%. That is the statistic that I have been told. I do not have direct communications with CN on this topic. I am happy to gather further information on mitigation and provide it to the hon. member and his colleagues on that.

I would say one last thing, though. One change that this government did make is on risk assessments to be conducted by rail. Companies have to take into consideration environmentally sensitive areas through which they travel as part of their risk analysis to ensure their operations are in line with our best practices. That is something that will be taken into consideration, and if CN is not co-operating, let us know.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill would give inspectors more powers and rights. One of the problems, as I have indicated to the minister, is that since 2013, when the Lac-Mégantic accident happened, only one rail safety inspector has been hired.

How can the minister expect inspectors to do their work if there are not enough of them to do a good job of inspecting the rails? What we saw in the Gogama accident is that there were problems with the rails.

Can the minister explain why she has not increased the number of rail safety inspectors?

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I have been over these numbers before. One thing I can tell the House is that the number of individuals who are involved in railway oversight has increased, both in the transportation of dangerous goods aspect and in the railway safety aspect of the department. We will continue to make sure that we are fully resourced in accordance with what Transport Canada officials indicate they need.

However, it is important to note that the amendments being sought here would not actually increase the workload. What they would do is give the inspectors more power so that they would not be caught up in a paper war with the railway but would have absolute, concrete powers to make orders and get justice and action from the railway as they need to and as issues unfold with respect to railway safety matters.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the minister for this legislation and for the actions that she has taken with respect to railway safety. I have railways that go through my riding on a very regular basis, which she knows very well.

This is a very good debate and discussion, with questions and comments from both sides of the House. With regard to the member who asked about CN cleaning up, one example that I remember is the situation that happened in Lake Wabamun. It is not in my riding, but it is near my riding. There was a spill there. I thought that CN did an outstanding job in the remediation at the lake.

I want to ask the minister to just expand on something. She mentioned in her speech that this is not self-regulation. This is a question that I sometimes get from companies in my area and the Nisku area, as well as from my constituents, especially in the southern part of the riding of Leduc. They ask if this is just allowing the companies to regulate themselves.

She pointed out in her speech how that is not the case and that it adheres to international standards. I wonder if she could just expand on that a little.

[Lisa Raitt, Conservative, Halton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that we have enough time to explain safety management systems, but what I can tell the House is that it was determined many years ago—about 25, in fact—here in Canada that with 46,000 kilometres of rail in our country, it would be virtually impossible to have an inspector every single day, at every single moment, on every single inch of rail doing the regulatory inspections that they were currently doing. It was determined at that time—and it was a good determination, by another government—that we would move to safety management systems to mimic what was happening internationally.

It starts with having regulations in place that will always stay in place and inspections in place that will always stay in place. However, it puts the burden of having a safety culture on the rail companies as well. They must embed safety practices into every aspect of their operations, from the very top—where we say there has to be a safety executive designated with the responsibility for safety in the company—all the way down to ensuring that training for unionized employees includes safety management systems.

Having whistle-blowing involved as well in the safety management system is incredibly important. Together, they work to make sure that we are plugging any holes that may be in the rail safety regime.

It works. The Transportation Safety Board agrees with us that it works. It is a great system for Canada.

[Hoang Mai, NDP, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to debate Bill C-52. This is a government bill that amends the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. It is a reaction to what happened in Lac-Mégantic.

I would like to begin by saying that I support the government's amendments because they are a step in the right direction. However, we would like to know why the government waited so long to do this. Why did it take a tragedy like Lac-Mégantic for the government to fix some of these problems?

Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like to go over the background. In 2013, a tragedy occurred that shocked the entire nation and had a terrible impact on the people of Lac-Mégantic. Everyone knows that 47 people were killed. Unfortunately, we cannot change that. However, the NDP has said since the beginning that we must learn from our mistakes. What happened? Why was the self-regulation and self-inspection system, which was implemented by the Liberals and maintained by the Conservatives, in place for so long?

As we all know, the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities studied the transportation of dangerous goods. The NDP presented a supplementary opinion. We found that, once again, the recommendations were a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough. Meanwhile, we did not hear any recommendations from the Liberal Party.

We need to know why the Lac-Mégantic tragedy happened. Despite a study that took from November 2013 until now to complete, since the report was tabled in the House relatively recently, many questions remain unanswered. That is why one of the NDP's recommendations called for a public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened. Our proposal has the support of the people of Lac-Mégantic and, more recently, the support of the Lac-Mégantic city council.

A lot of questions remain unanswered. For instance, why is it that the government authorized MMA to operate with a single conductor, especially considering that company's poor safety record? Why was MMA given an exemption? I would remind the House that in the entire country, only two companies were exempt from the rule that required two conductors. Why did the government authorize just one conductor, especially in the case of MMA, a company with a troubling history, as we know?

Other questions were also raised. How is it that the government still has not assumed its share of the responsibility, despite the investigation done by the Transportation Safety Board, which found the government at least partially to blame? It is rather uncommon for the Transportation Safety Board to come down so hard on a government. I spoke with some residents of Lac-Mégantic, and I can assure you that they remain frustrated about the lack of information. They do not feel as though justice has been served. No one can understand why the government refuses to launch an independent public inquiry to really get to the bottom of what happened.

To come back to the bill, the Lac-Mégantic tragedy made us realize something else. Afterward, we realized that MMA had $25 million in liability insurance. That amount does not even begin to cover the $400 million that has been spent to date on cleaning up and rebuilding, and that cost may still go up. How can a company have only $25 million in insurance? One of the ways that the government responded and the reason why we are supporting this bill is that it will require rail companies to increase their liability insurance, or at the very least, it will impose a minimum amount on them. As I said, this is a step in the right direction. However, if we take a closer look at the table, we see that a minimum of $25 million is being imposed on the smallest rail companies that transport smaller amounts of dangerous goods.

That is the same amount that was set for MMA. On the other hand, the government wants to set the minimum level of liability coverage for larger companies at $1 billion. That includes CN and CP, which are class 1 railways that carry substantial amounts of dangerous goods. Without getting into too much detail, the bill sets out minimum levels of liability insurance up to a maximum of $1 billion based on the type of dangerous goods that the company transports.

Why are these levels based on the quantity of dangerous goods that are transported all year? The Lac-Mégantic incident involved a small rail company that happened to be transporting a fairly large quantity of dangerous goods at the time. However, the costs associated with the disaster are far greater than the limits set out in this bill, particularly for small companies.

Once again, we will not give the government a blank cheque. We know that this bill is a step in the right direction, but we want answers to these questions.

What is more, this bill provides for a disaster relief fund financed by shippers to cover any damages resulting from accidents involving crude oil.

I asked the question of the minister today regarding what I will call the disaster relief fund. The minister said today that it would be pegged at $250 million. I am asking why we are pegging the disaster relief fund at $250 million.

I mentioned before that the Lac-Mégantic disaster will cost more than $400 million. Also, if we really believe in the principle of polluter pays, why put a cap? Does that not mean that in the case that the railroad company does not have enough insurance, then the disaster relief fund would apply? If it is capped at $250 million, who else would have to pay for the cleanup and reconstruction? At the end of the day, it is the taxpayers who would have to pay, through the government.

That is actually what is happening right now. We saw it happening in Lac-Mégantic. Unfortunately, we do not understand why there will be a cap here, especially of $250 million. That is another question we will have to ask the minister and probably a Transport Canada official.

I asked the minister another question, and we will probably agree to disagree. The minister said they have increased the number of rail safety inspectors to a sufficient number. I mentioned before in the House and in committee that the government has only hired one additional inspector for rail safety. I am not the person who is saying that; it is Transport Canada actually answering one of my questions.

We know the impact on the environment after what we saw in Lac-Mégantic and with the derailments in the northern part of Ontario. My colleague from Timmins mentioned the Gogama derailment and the implications it has with respect to the environment. If the only answer from the government is to hire one more rail safety inspector, that is a problem, especially after we read in the TSB's preliminary report that there were issues with rail infrastructure.

The government says it is not allowing self-inspection or that SMS is sufficient. What the NDP is saying on this side of the House is that although the safety management system put in place by the Liberals is a system that goes in the right direction, how it is applied and enforced is key, and what we have seen is the government just transferring all the responsibilities to the railway companies.

That is clear because when we ask questions to railway companies as to who is responsible for inspections, they will tell us they are.

On the other side, all Transport Canada is looking at is mainly whether the safety management system is existent. Again, the Auditor General and the TSB said that the way it was applied and enforced was not sufficient.

Questions were raised with regard to whether Transport Canada had enough resources. We know the rail safety directorate, the body that is in charge of overseeing and ensuring that rail safety is enforced and applied, has had its budget cut by 20%, if we look at the 2010 numbers. The government's actions speak louder than words. It is cutting the rail safety directorate, the body that looks at ensuring rail safety is enforced.

When we talk about rail safety, again, there is the issue of the lack of oversight. That was raised a long time ago by the TSB, and it has been raised by the official opposition. However, when we look at the action, which is cutting budgets to the rail safety directorate, we do not understand where the government intends to take leadership in ensuring that oversight is there.

I have also asked the minister questions about the number of railways that have received penalties in the past few years.

The response from the Minister of Transport is zero. The railway companies have been fined zero dollars, when we know that some companies have not been obeying the laws or the regulations and are cutting corners.

The government is currently cutting the budget of those responsible for inspecting the railway companies and enforcing the law, but what is more, it is fining the railway companies zero dollars. The law is not actually being enforced.

Further on in Bill C-52, some measures are introduced to give the minister and the inspectors more authority. On that issue, we support the proposed amendments.

Indeed, when we know that a railway company is breaking the rules or has some safety problems, then it is important for the government to take action.

Again, we take issue with the lack of transparency in all this. There is a reason we asked for a public inquiry into the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and the transportation of dangerous goods. Again, we are not getting all the answers that we and the public are looking for.

When it comes to lack of transparency, we need not look very far; we just have to look at the government. The former minister said that if municipalities wanted information about dangerous goods passing through their area, they would have to complete an access to information request.

I have to acknowledge that the current minister has made progress. However, that does show this government's reluctance to share information and work with the municipalities.

There is not yet full co-operation with the municipalities. I wonder how the municipalities are going to pay for their first responders' training and ensure that they have all the training information and the resources needed to respond to an emergency.

Unfortunately, what I heard from the many municipal councillors and mayors I met with is not reassuring. I travelled around Quebec to hear from Quebeckers and, unfortunately, they still feel that there is a lack of co-operation and information-sharing.

For example, since Lac-Mégantic, the Transportation Safety Board has asked railway companies to provide their risk assessments.

Companies must assess the risks, for example when they pass through a densely populated area or when they are transporting a certain quantity of a particular type of product. In the United States, the assessments are public and can be viewed. The Canadian government has not taken steps to enable the public—and especially the groups affected, like municipalities—to access these assessments.

In committee we asked why a particular risk was taken, what risk assessments were done and whether Transport Canada had received them. The response was that risk assessments had been done. Transport Canada responded that all of that information is not made public. We cannot get an answer to our question. The NDP thinks that the government should be much more transparent.

Unfortunately it takes disasters like the one in Lac-Mégantic and the ones in northern Ontario for people to truly see what is going on. It is shocking to see what happens, for example, with train derailments and the impact they have on the environment. The government continues to lack transparency.

I have to say that this and other bills have been steps in the right direction. However, there are still some unresolved issues. One of those issues is the rail cars that were introduced after the Lac-Mégantic accident even though the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has been asking the government to make rail cars safer for the past 20 years. At the time they were called DOT-111 tank cars, or class 111 tank cars. “DOT-111” is the term used in the United States.

Last year, the government introduced new standards in response to Canadians' concerns. The government said it would take three years for all of the rail cars in use in Canada to comply with the new standards. Unfortunately, the Gogama incident and the subsequent Transportation Safety Board report showed that CPC-1232 tank cars were not adequate either. The new DOT-111 tank cars, which the minister said are the new standard, are not appropriate. They respond just like the old DOT-111 tank cars. That is not according to me; that is according to the Transportation Safety Board itself. We still have the same concerns.

The minister said that new standards would be brought in. I asked why it took so long for that to happen.

The minister's response was that it was negotiating and dealing with the U.S., which takes time. However, when we talk about the safety of Canadians, we know these standards are not sufficient. It will take another 10 years to put the promised standards in place. That is 10 more years for us to have these unsafe rail tankers going through our cities and near our schools. I have heard a lot about that from Canadians from coast to coast to coast. They are worried.

Although these are steps in the right direction, there is still a requirement for stronger regulations and enforcement. The main concern is with respect to the lack of oversight. The government has said that it is moving forward on that front, but we know the budget for the rail safety directorate has been cut by 20% since 2010 and when we only have one additional inspector, those actions speak louder than words. The government needs to do more to ensure that safety of Canadians is the number one priority.