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… read more

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.

read less

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, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member with great interest. However, I am also aware that the policy of the member's party is to put a priority on passenger rail over that of freight, particularly in southern Ontario. In other words, freight trains would be pushed to the side as VIA Rail passenger trains pass through and then the cargo trains would be allowed to continue.

With the high volatility of the cargo and the switching of tracks being one of the prime drivers behind derailments, is the NDP considering re-evaluating its policy of putting VIA Rail on a priority basis and cargo trains having to shunt back and forth between side rails as they move through dense urban areas?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, the NDP believes in passenger rail. We have to be proud of VIA Rail, although a lot of things need to be improved.

I am not sure if the member understands when we talk about switching because there already is switching. One of the problems is that passenger trains use the same lines as other railway companies. When we talk about giving priority, it does not change the fact that there is still switching. There are still issues with respect to how cargo goes through our cities.

The New Democrats believe in passenger rail, and that it is important. However, we need to find other options of not having cargo, especially dangerous goods, going through our cities, and this is the case right now. Giving priority does not change the fact that dangerous goods will continue to travel through densely populated areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected here 11 years ago, the then Liberal government had a big plan for rail safety with self-regulation. Certainly the New Democratic Party warned against the danger of allowing very large corporate interests to self-regulate, but that seemed to be the Liberal mantra at the time in all manner of public safety issues, that we should allow companies to do it, that they would do it more efficiently, and it would save money. Yet, in all manner of areas, whether it was food safety in the listeriosis crisis, the beef industry or Lac-Mégantic, there is a fundamental need for the public good to have clear regulations and inspections from outside by public servants to ensure the public interest is protected.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague, from his time in his transport critic portfolio, what he thinks of this long-standing policy that the Liberals and the Conservatives have had of allowing corporations like CN and CP self-regulate.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a concern. My colleague is right when he says that is the Liberal and Conservative philosophy of allowing self-regulation, but also, let us not forget, self-inspection.

A big study was done on the transportation of dangerous goods and the NDP came out with recommendations, whereas the Liberals had no recommendations. Basically, the Liberals were saying that everything that was in place was fine. When we talk about self-regulation and self-inspection, if companies are asked if their regulations are safer or stronger than the government has put forward, most of the companies that are respectable and have a culture of safety will say yes, their regulations are stronger and they have to do inspections. After that, the government does not look into it.

We have heard from the minister and the Liberals. They believe companies have to self-inspect and self-regulate. SMS is one step, but the way it is being enforced or applied is not sufficient or satisfactory to us.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, could the member provide some clarification on the question from my colleague from Toronto?

One could comment on the NDP position on pipelines, which is almost for no pipeline expansion and, as a direct result, we would no doubt see thousands more tankers on our railway system. However, I will put that one to the side for now.

The question I have for him, following on the question by the member for Toronto Centre, is this. When we talk about VIA Rail going down the tracks versus a freight train going down the tracks, what happens currently is that VIA Rail pulls over to the side and the freight train continues on. The NDP is saying that it should be reversed. If it is reversed, there is an element of danger whenever a train pulls over.

Would the NDP consider looking at changing its position so we would not put communities in danger by VIA Rail being given the first priority over some of the long freight trains that are carrying a considerable amount of dangerous goods, as he has pointed out?

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have been asked that question.

The problem is that rail cars transporting dangerous goods continue to run on the same tracks. The issue of priority will not necessarily make the problem any worse, because right now, there is already switching to allow passenger cars to go through.

The real question we need to ask, however, is this: why do the Liberal members continue to believe that the companies themselves will be the ones to come up with the best solutions, to self-regulate and self-inspect? Why is it that, despite what happened in Lac-Mégantic and in Gogama, the Liberals are being so supportive of the Conservative government's approach, even though it has not added any recommendations to any of the studies done on transporting dangerous goods? They are content with the status quo, with what happened in Lac-Mégantic and in Gogama, and have no additional recommendations to make.

I repeat, I am proud to be a member of a party that supports passenger rail. That is very important to us, considering our view of the environment and the future of transportation. We need to find the safest options. Unfortunately, the Liberal Party does not want to even look at that aspect.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my colleague for his speech and I commend him on all his hard work on this file. Obviously, he raised all our constituents' concerns over rail safety.

We can see that the government is being very inconsistent. It is great that Bill C-52 would increase the companies' insurance premiums, but that measure is not enough.

Another thing we have to be proactive about is assessing safety in the first place. There was talk of deregulation, but the number of inspectors is quite small, since only one inspector is being added.

Could my colleague elaborate on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saint-Lambert for her question.

I worked with her on rail safety in the south shore and I know that this is an issue she follows very closely and is very important to her constituents.

Her question is very important in the context of today's debate. The government is putting rules in place, but they address certain financial issues that come up after the fact, once tragedy strikes.

However, what the NDP wants is preventive measures to ensure that tragedy like the one in Lac-Mégantic never strikes again. For that we need prevention. We need to make sure that the rules are not only tougher, but also enforced.

For that we need people. Unfortunately, the government is taking a wrong turn when it cuts the budget of those who are there to enforce the rules. What is more, since 2013, it has added only one more rail inspector, which does not bode well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the issue of rail safety is paramount to the riding I represent. Both the southern boundary and northern boundary of the riding are defined by some of the busiest track in Canada.

The south end, which used to be an industrial zone, is now lived in by thousands of people, and thousands more within the next few years. It has a largely commuter rail system. VIA Rail and the regional GO Transit move through the corridor of downtown Toronto. In the north, a single pairing of rail lines moves along Dupont Street through central downtown Toronto. This is the same line that the Lac-Mégantic trains travelled through Toronto on. They are also the same lines on which, 30 or 40 years ago, the Mississauga trains that derailed and caused one of the largest civilian evacuations in the history of this country passed through this section of downtown Toronto.

As a former city councillor, we were always dealing with the challenges of these rail lines in terms of the zoning that they created, but also in terms of trying to moderate speeds and get a handle on the dangerous goods that are travelling on these rail lines.

The half dozen derailments in Ontario, two in Gogama and others, would also have travelled through some of the most densely populated parts of Canada. We know from one of the derailments that it was just a matter of time before the fractured wheel would crack, splinter and cause a derailment. As I said, that could have happened in the heart of downtown Toronto. That is not to say that wherever it happened would not have been a tragedy, but the cost, population and scope of the damage could have been phenomenal.

We have been tracking this issue very closely in the local neighbourhoods and there are a few things that come to mind. One of them is this notion of the zoning.

We heard at committee last week a Conservative member talk about trying to sterilize 300 metres on either side of the tracks right across the country as a way of protecting populations. This is absurd, as 300 metres would have meant the SkyDome could not have been built, the CN Tower would not have been built and even the Royal York would have been barred from redevelopment. Also, the cost of sterilizing that land would be in the trillions of dollars. However, this is what happens when one thinks off the back of an envelope in a committee. It scares one to think what might be happening in cabinet right now as we speak.

The zoning that has been put in place is about crash barriers. However, the zoning was put in place years ago when there were smaller trains with far less volatile chemicals travelling through this part of the country.

It is one thing, with those speed limits and size of trains, to build a 30-metre crash wall, reinforce it with engineering, push residential zoning away from the area and zone it as industrial. However, when we triple and quadruple the size of the trains, increase the speed of those trains and reclassify volatile goods so that we can increase those speeds, a crash barrier will simply become a containment for a blast, and that blast would be extraordinary, especially in a dense urban area, especially with 30-metre blast walls containing the explosion. We know about volatile chemicals when they explode in that circumstance: the containment actually increases the volatility and the damage would be extraordinary. Therefore, getting it right is fundamentally important.

My question to the Minister of Transport is germane to this, because that same line travels through downtown Toronto with level crossings. In one particular spot near the Dupont junction area, there is a public school right next to the level crossing. If a school bus, God forbid, stalled on the track or a traffic jam backed traffic up, and it happens, a freight train and a school bus could come into contact.

My question to the Minister of Transport is: What kind of money is there from the federal government to start changing these level crossings?

The answer to that is $10 million a year. However, $10 million a year does not pay one-eighth of the cost of changing those level crossings to underground bypasses, which is the norm across downtown Toronto. This means that there is not any money there, because there are about 5,000 of these level crossings identified as being dangerous across the country. Yet, we put $10 million a year on the table, as a country, to try and modify and modernize our rail capacity as we load more and more and longer and longer trains into these areas. Something has to happen.

At the same time, the rail companies are not securing the corridor. We heard from one of the presidents in Montreal at the board of trade a few weeks past saying that terrorism is now a concern. If those volatile chemicals that are travelling through Lac-Mégantic and Mississauga are travelling through Toronto, one would think the rail corridor would be secure.

I can show, next to a liquor store in downtown Toronto, where the fence has been pulled apart so many times they do not even bother putting it back up. We can see the path that has been beaten in the snow and in the soil, across the train tracks. It is extraordinarily dangerous.

When we try to get information as a city on what the actual speeds of these trains are, what the speed limits should be in a dense urban area, when we try to re-calibrate that for the volatility, size and weight of the trains passing through, when we try to get that information, we are told we cannot have it.

We can get the information after the fact now. We can get disclosure after the fact. However, when an emergency is under way, they have to call while the trucks are on the way. Trying to build a rail corridor in advance for the volatility, that information is seen as proprietary and as a result cities do not have it.

The transport minister is mistaken when she says the FCM is satisfied with this bill and these steps, because the FCM is looking for more information. One of the reasons is not because of fire departments like the one we have in Toronto, it is that all along the rail corridors across this country most of the fire departments are made up of volunteer firefighters. They have neither the training nor the equipment, nor the advance knowledge nor the capacity to get the advance knowledge as they race to some of these areas.

Advance notification and co-operation with FCM is missing from this bill and it needs to be in it.

We also know that there is virtually no monitoring. When we try to find out what the speeds of the trains are, and we ask, we are met with a blank stare. It has gotten to the point where we are almost putting police officers with radar guns by the tracks to try to figure out if they are in compliance with their own rules and regulations. That has to change. Posted speed limits and community knowledge about this have to become the norm. Instead, it is still hidden behind this veil of railway secrecy which predates the arrival of many of the municipal codes that govern the exact issue we are talking about here.

We also know that the real safety solution for this is one that pushes the issue into another realm of debate. Solutions include shorter trains, more highly regulated chemicals on those trains, perhaps transporting the diesel and the highly volatile chemicals only in the new and improved rail cars, and until that happens much lower speed limits being imposed. There are all sorts of solutions waiting to be put into place.

Every time a solution is layered on the rail companies, what is built is pressure for a new pipeline. During the by-election that I was elected in, the NDP was claiming it did not support any pipelines in Canada, including Canada east. It said it wanted everything moved by rail. It became very apparent to the voters in the riding that I represent that if everything is not put on rail, it ends up in pipelines; if it is not in pipelines, it is on rail.

There has to be a decision one way or the other, but to be against both is not a solution. The chemicals and oil are going to get to market, and we have to manage them better. There has to be a decision based on evidence and safety, with proper enforcement and standards that make a solution possible.

Pumping it all through Toronto on rail cars, then not enforcing rail safety, then not maintaining the lines, then not monitoring the speeds, and then not doing proper safety inspections, and then not giving municipalities the money they need to build the infrastructure to make this happen is a recipe for disaster. We have seen tragic disasters in smaller communities. It is a matter of time, unfortunately, and if we do not take action that we are going to see it in a larger community. That has to change. We have to get on that issue right away.

While this bill takes some small steps forward, and we will be supporting those small steps forward, there is much more that needs to be done. That is the campaign that residents in the riding I represent are starting to lead.

The other issue is this: the notion of shunting cargo and freight trains to the side tracks while passenger trains whip through at high speed appears to be good transportation policy vis-à-vis getting commuters from one city to the next or from one part of the region to the next. The trouble with that is that these large trains do not move very quickly when they do move and have to take the side tracks.

The act of zipping across lines and moving to side tracks creates the volatility and the risk. If there is constant moving of volatile freight from line to line to line to allow passenger trains to go through straight and fast, that actually accelerates and amplifies the possibility of a risk. I think that is the question we are trying to get at when we are talking to our NDP colleagues about their priority of passenger rail over freight rail.

We have to do what is right for freight. The real solution is not prioritizing one over the other. The real solution is building more track. That is what Unifor has been asking for. That is what this Liberal Party has been asking for. That is the actual solution, to invest in the infrastructure, not trying to make do with the existing circumstance and just hoping that the decision made does not end up in a disaster.

It is about taking the tough steps to understand that these chemicals and materials that are cargo have to get through some dense urban areas. The choice is pipeline versus rail, in some cases. The other choice is freight over passenger to maintain safety. If we do all of that correctly, engage communities and municipalities, and fund municipalities properly, we can end up with a transportation system that works, that is safe, that is modern, and that does not require monitoring the fear as much as monitoring the freight.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. There are certainly aspects that we should examine.

I think my colleague is dreaming about the era of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said that he wanted to double the number of railway tracks in western Canada in order to improve the transportation network.

Has my colleague calculated how much it would cost to double the tracks in Canada? How much time would that take? I think he is living in a dream world, especially since the Liberal Party has not introduced any plans in that regard. I hope that they will introduce a plan and not just criticize the other parties' plans, which have been tabled and costed.

If he does not support increased oversight by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, then what exactly is the member proposing to do? If the Liberals are instead proposing to spend billions on other railway lines, have they found the means to pay for that dream?

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that there are many people dreaming of Trudeau these days, and that is clearly reflected in the polls. Some people's dream is another party's nightmare, quite clearly.

The area I am talking about where there has been investment in rail and a multiplying of the number of tracks—doubling was the phrase the member used—is the Quebec-Toronto-Windsor corridor. In that area, Unifor has identified and clearly shown that adding additional rail capacity would create safety and better commute times for both regional and national companies. That is one of the areas I think we need to explore. You are asking for particular policies. You will get those.

In terms of oversight, we want more oversight and more effective oversight. We certainly want the money that is currently budgeted to be spent.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Before we go to questions and comments, I remind all hon. members to direct their comments to the Chair rather than directly to their colleagues.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know if my colleague could expand on the area of infrastructure spending. If we are prepared to spend infrastructure dollars, not only will it create valuable jobs, which Canadians are in great need of, but it will expand economic horizons and provide wonderful social benefits.

Can the member expand on the feasibility of having new tracks put in place and on how all sides could benefit if only we had a government that understood basic economics and how the country would benefit from investing more in infrastructure.

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

Mr. Speaker, the current fund for rail underpasses is $10 million a year, which is an eighth of the cost of a typical underpass. The reason municipalities are not subscribing is that they do not have the other $70 million to build.

Under questioning, the minister answered that the municipalities could use the new build Canada infrastructure fund, which, as we know, has been cut down to $200 million this year. It is back-end loaded to ten years from now, which means that we have to wait ten years for rail safety. That is not appropriate.

The provinces quite often see this as a federal responsibility, and they do not see a role for partnering. If the government was serious about rail safety, municipal infrastructure, and building an economy right across the country, those dollars would not be so small, the payout times would not be so staggered, and the commitment to municipalities would not be just a moral commitment; it would be a real commitment that delivered real dollars for infrastructure.

One of the reasons it is so critical that we change the government is that we need to change those policies.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak today in support of Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act, which would further strengthen our rail safety regime and ensure that adequate compensation is available. Our government takes the safety and security of Canadians very seriously.

In my constituency of Brandon—Souris, rail safety is an important issue, as most communities have a rail line going directly through town. In addition to rail lines going through communities, many farmers and landowners have a rail line on their property. Only a couple of weeks ago, there was a train derailment northeast of Brandon. We were fortunate that the damage was minimal and no one was hurt, but this incident is just another reminder of why we need to implement the measures contained in Bill C-52.

Let me first highlight how the government works with communities to ensure proper emergency response regimes and then how the measures in Bill C-52 would ensure liability and compensation for any community.

I would like to take the opportunity to salute our first responders, who play a critical role in the event of an accident. We all value the work of Canada's first responders, and our government works with them on matters pertaining to the transport of dangerous goods and emergency response. Transport Canada works to ensure that measures are in place to quickly respond in the event of an accident involving dangerous goods. This work includes ensuring that municipalities and first responders have the tools and information they need in a timely manner. The department provides emergency planners and first responders with information to assess risks in their communities and to plan and train for emergencies.

On November 20, 2013, the Minister of Transport issued protective direction no. 32, under the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The intent of the protective direction was to help ensure that municipalities would have access to better information for emergency response and planning purposes. According to the protective direction, railway operators must share yearly aggregate information on the nature and volume of dangerous goods transported by railway through a municipality to the municipality's designated emergency planning officer. As well, all operators must report any significant change in the information provided to municipalities, meaning a change in the types and volumes of goods transiting through a municipality, as soon as is practical after the change occurs. This information provides emergency planners and first responders with the information they need to improve risk assessment, emergency planning, and training. Municipal leaders and emergency planners are already using this information to prepare for incidents involving dangerous goods.

Emergency response has been an important issue that has been raised by municipalities and the public. It is important to note that the vast majority of dangerous goods shipments arrive at their final destination without incident. However, unfortunately, accidents can still happen. To help avoid the potentially serious consequences of such events, as well as to speed up recovery efforts, our government is actively involved in supporting municipalities and first responders in emergency situations.

On April 23, 2014, our government announced the creation of an emergency response task force to bring together stakeholders, including municipalities, first responders, railways, shippers, and response organizations, to strengthen emergency response capacity. The emergency response task force will conduct further research and will assess, evaluate, and make recommendations to advise on improvements we can make to the emergency response assistance plan program. In fact, such recommendations from the task force have already been implemented. The task force members include railway representatives, chemical producers, and the Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada, just to name a few. The Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs is also an active member of this task force.

These members have been meeting monthly since July 2014, and sub-group meetings have been held for targeted discussions on specific topics, one of them being first responder training. Our government is facilitating these discussions, where railways and shippers can join forces with the first responders community to identify readily available training materials, to identify gaps, and to find solutions that will increase support to first responders during large-scale rail incidents involving flammable liquids.

The emergency response task force continues its work of reviewing and making recommendations on the transportation of flammable liquids by rail in Canada, and our government looks forward to receiving its final report and recommendations this summer.

Emergency response assistance plans are required for certain dangerous goods that call for special expertise and response equipment. These plans stipulate what industry must do to support first responders during an accident involving dangerous goods.

Our government has worked to strengthen the emergency response assistance plan regime. We are now requiring rail shippers to develop such plans for higher-risk flammable liquids, such as crude oil, gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, and ethanol, when a single-tank car contains one of these designated liquids. These plans are now in place to help provide expert assistance to first responders.

Before a shipment can be made, any person who imports or offers for transport dangerous goods must submit a plan to Transport Canada. The department then reviews the plan and approves it if it is satisfied that there is a capability to respond to emergency situations for those dangerous goods listed in the plan. The emergency response assistance plan assists municipalities and local emergency responders by providing them with around-the-clock technical experts and specially trained and equipped emergency response personnel at the scene of an accident.

Members of the House may be aware that Transport Canada operates the Canadian Transport Emergency Centre, a national advisory service that assists emergency response personnel in handling dangerous goods emergencies on a 24-7 basis. This centre is staffed by bilingual professional scientists who specialize in emergency response. They are experienced in interpreting technical information and in providing assistance to first responders. The centre handles over 25,000 phone calls per year related to safety, and scientists are available to take emergency calls immediately.

Transport Canada, through CANUTEC, also publishes an emergency response guidebook to help firefighters that is available at no charge to the first responder community. In addition to being available online, almost 100,000 paperback copies of the most recent version of the ERG 2012 guidebook were distributed for all vehicles used by Canadian fire departments, police departments, and ambulance services across Canada.

The next publication of the emergency response guidebook, scheduled for 2016, will include information on the Canadian emergency response assistance plan program and its applications. The inclusion of this information was recommended by the same task force that is investigating the need for future changes to the emergency response assistance plan program.

The Lac-Mégantic tragedy highlighted the need to strengthen Canada's liability and compensation regime for rail. In this case, Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway only carried $25 million in insurance, far too little to cover the scope of damages from this catastrophic accident. That is why in the 2013 Speech from the Throne, our government committed to requiring shippers and railways to carry additional insurance so that they will be held accountable.

In January 2014, the Minister of Transport launched a review of the liability and compensation regime for the railways. The primary goal of this review was to strengthen the rail liability and compensation regime and to ensure that sufficient funds would be available to compensate potential victims and clean up the environment after any future incident.

Bill C-52 goes beyond simply increasing insurance requirements. The bill would also provide an additional source of funds for catastrophic accidents, clarify railway liability and implement stronger enforcement measures.

The first step Bill C-52 takes to ensure that accident costs would be covered is to implement mandatory railway insurance requirements that correspond to the risks associated with railway operations. The Canadian Transportation Agency would assign railways to one of four levels of insurance based on the type and volume of dangerous goods they carry. Railways carrying little or no dangerous goods would be required to hold a minimum of $25 million in insurance, while class 1 railways, which carry substantial amounts of dangerous goods, would be required to hold at least $1 million in insurance. Short line railways carrying moderate amounts of dangerous goods would initially be required to hold $50 million or $125 million in insurance, again depending on the type and volumes of dangerous goods being carried. The levels would increase to $100 million and $250 million respectively one year later. Railways would be required to inform the agency of any change in their operations that could impact their insurance.

Importantly, the agency would be empowered to ensure that railways complied with the new requirements. The agency could make inquires as it deemed necessary in order to make certain that railways continued to hold the required amount of insurance. If it found otherwise, the agency would have to revoke or suspend the railway's certificate of fitness.

On top of this, Bill C-52 would provide the agency with the ability to apply administrative monetary penalties to any railway failing to comply with insurance level requirements or failing to report a change in its operations that could affect its insurance. These penalties would go up to $100,000 per violation.

With these risk-based mandatory minimum levels of insurance and strengthened enforcement mechanisms, Bill C-52 would hold railways accountable and would ensure there would be sufficient resources to cover the vast majority of potential railway accidents.

What would occur in the rare event of a catastrophic rail incident, like the one experienced in Lac-Mégantic? The transportation of crude oil by rail is rapidly growing and as we know, accidents involving crude oil can have dangerous consequences. It is important that a strengthened liability and compensation regime be prepared to address the costs of such an accident.

For catastrophic accidents involving crude oil, Bill C-52 would implement a two-tier regime, similar to the one we currently have for marine tankers. The regime would clearly establish and share liability between railways and shippers and provide an additional source of compensation. In this two-tier regime, railway companies would be held automatically liable up to their mandatory minimum level of insurance. This means they would be liable without the need to prove fault or negligence.

In cases where a crude oil accident results in damages that surpass the railway's minimum mandatory insurance levels, a supplementary compensation fund would cover the costs. The fund would be financed by the shippers of crude oil through a levy of $1.65 per tonne. Railways would collect the levy and remit it to the government and the funds would be kept in a special account on the consolidated revenue fund. Once the fund reaches the targeted capitalization of $250 million, the minister of transport could stop the levy and then reinstate it again when and if ever necessary. The fund would be managed by an administrator appointed by the Governor-in-Council. The administrator would be responsible for establishing and paying out claims.

In the unlikely event that damages from an accident exceed the amount held in the shipper financed fund, the consolidated revenue fund would act as a backup to ensure that all costs were covered. Any amount charged to the consolidated revenue fund would be reimbursed using the shipper levy. The Minister of Transport could also institute a special and temporary levy on federally regulated railways to expedite the repayment of the public purse.

This new regime for crude oil accidents would cover all actual losses, including damages to people, property and the environment. It would also cover costs incurred by the Crown in responding to the accident and compensation for damage to the non-use value of public resources. Although at the outset, the fund would only cover incidents involving crude oil, the bill provides the flexibility to add other dangerous goods by regulation in the future.

Of course, the new shipper-financed fund could not function without a means of ensuring compliance. Administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000 per violation could be applied to ensure the railways adhered to their obligation to collect the levy and remit funds to the government, as well as the requirement to keep records regarding the levy.

Railways common carrier obligation to provide service will be dependent on the payment of the levy. This means that a crude oil shipper would be required to pay the levy in order to obtain rail service.

By creating mandatory insurance levels for railways, providing additional layers of compensation and instituting robust mechanisms to ensure compliance, Bill C-52 would make certain that in the event of a rail accident, no matter the magnitude, there would be sufficient resources to compensate victims and remediate the environment.

I encourage all members to vote in favour of the bill and refer it to the committee without further delay.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the current government has been trying to catch up as a result of the Liberal government's deregulation of railways in 1999.

Rail safety regulation has been neglected, and we see that without a government committed to ensuring that safety we find ourselves trying to catch up. There was the Lac-Mégantic tragedy in particular, and in the riding next to mine, in south-west Montreal, there have been four derailments in recent years.

Do my Conservative colleagues not believe that the government should make a stronger commitment to rail safety?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we want to do everything we can to ensure the safety of our railroad transportation and all mechanisms of transportation. We need to be accountable wherever we can.

There certainly has been more crude oil carried on rail in the last number of years with the expansions and what we would have anticipated had there been more pipelines. I would encourage the opposition to come on side with some of the favourable pipeline developments we have put forward and recommended.

Everyone knows that pipelines are the safest way to move oil, interprovincially and internationally on our continent, as well as trying to expand some of our export commitments and customer opportunities as well.

However, we have certainly taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, in regard to Bill C-52, safe and accountable rail act and have responded to the tragedy that happened at Lac-Mégantic. We can never underestimate the devastation that took place in that community. This is just a start in regard to the programming that we can put in place, and the compensation and importance that we put on rail responsibility.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put for my hon. colleague the position put forward by the member for Trinity—Spadina in his remarks, and it is this. One of the most dangerous aspects of rail travel with regard to freight is the shunting of large trains from place to place to make way for passenger trains.

It is not so much a case of choosing between efficient passenger travel and efficient freight travel or safety as much as it is a question of allocation of resources. All too often we see that every problem here apparently can be addressed by a legislative change, when really, what we should do is look at how resources are allocated.

Does the hon. member agree that increased infrastructure spending, especially with respect to rails, would increase safety, and is an 87% cut in the build Canada fund from $2 billion down to $287 million consistent with the government's apparent support of rail safety in that context?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the pretext of the member's question is wrong. The building Canada plan is the largest single investment in Canadian infrastructure in Canadian history, at $7 billion over the next 10 years. Therefore, the premise of his question is false.

However, I agree that taxpayers should not have to be on the hook for these kinds of accidents. We brought forward Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act, to ensure there are insurance levels that are commensurate with today's costs of doing business and the actions of cleanup, not only for our environment but also for the tragedies that have happened in communities such as Lac-Mégantic, which hopefully will never happen again.

I believe the levels of compensation with respect to insurance are responsible. There have been public discussions with industry as well. There is a compensation package put in place of $1.65 a metric tonne to help compensate for disasters that may be over and above the regular insurance limits allowed by the insurance packages we have asked to have put in place. The levy would still be in place to help collect any back amounts, which would be at the cost of the government as well.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I want to tell him that, unfortunately, when it comes to safety self-regulation has not been very successful.

My colleagues from the south shore and I organized a public consultation on the transportation of dangerous goods. Our constituents are very concerned because they do not have the information they need about the trains that pass through densely populated urban areas. There are houses and apartment buildings in these areas.

Although this bill increases the level of liability insurance that companies are required to have, it does not really focus on safety and assessment.

Could my colleague tell us how his government plans to take those concerns into account and address them in a constructive and positive manner?

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is an important one because it refers to a situation I had the opportunity to deal with in my farm leadership life on the Prairies before I came to Parliament or the Manitoba legislature.

We have been dealing with train sizes and speeds for many decades. It is the reason why I was so firm with respect to ensuring that the emergency response task force include stakeholder input throughout the whole process as it was developed. That is over and above the insurance liability. Compensation is only one aspect of covering the costs of cleanup.

We would like to see measures put in place to prevent these accidents from happening. I believe Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act, would create a situation where there would be more planning on the table with respect to the emergency response task force and the emergency response plan, which would inevitably reduce some of these accidents. However, as I said earlier, one of the answers is to move more oil the tracks and into pipelines.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear that because during the by-election the NDP candidate who I ran against said that the New Democrats would never support any pipelines. Which is it? Is it no pipelines or is all of this to go by rail? What is the position of the NDP? I am trying to get an answer on that one.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have also heard the New Democrats say in the House that do not want it to move oil by pipeline but they also do not want it to move by rail. I do not think the answer is to try to move it all by truck either. Although I thank my colleague for that question, there is a bit of a setup there. However, it looks like neither party is in favour of moving oil by pipeline.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

Railway safety has been a very important issue to the New Democratic Party. We have watched multiple derailments across this country over recent years. This topic has gained a lot of attention and is of tremendous concern to the Canadian public. That concern was most certainly heightened by the terrible tragedy of the derailment in Lac-Mégantic, where 47 lives were lost. It is important to keep at the front of our minds as we discuss railway safety in the House that when accidents like this happen, there are losses that are irrecoverable. Those losses include the loss of life and they include damage to our environment which in many cases we cannot recover.

Since that terrible tragedy in Lac-Mégantic, the Conservatives have promised time and time again to rectify the shortcomings of the railway safety system in Canada with increased safety inspections and rail safety compliance measures. They have yet to honour that commitment and this bill does very little to move us closer to that commitment.

With three train derailments occurring in the span of a month recently, this is a pressing issue, top of mind for many Canadians, not just for those who live where the derailments occurred, but right across this country, for those who live or have loved ones who live close to railway lines. This is an issue which the government has been scrambling to catch up with for the duration of its time in government, which is coming on 10 years now.

So far, these derailments have occurred mainly in rural areas, the terrible tragedy in Lac-Mégantic notwithstanding. As the critic for urban affairs, I am hoping to draw the attention of the House to the potential economic, human, and environmental costs that would arise if something like this were to happen to a train passing through one of our big cities. It should be noted that this bill would do little to alleviate the costs associated with a derailment in urban areas, where in many cases there are tens of thousands of people living quite literally within a stone's throw of a potential derailment site.

There are some principles that we in the NDP adhere to, stand by, and put forward that inform our comments on Bill C-52 through this debate. These core principles include implementing the principle of polluter pay while also improving rail liability and accountability measures for rail companies. The latter, rail liability and accountability measures, are long overdue. In the case of Lac-Mégantic, taxpayers are still on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in cleanup costs and rebuilding costs, and of course, as I have mentioned, one cannot put a price on the cost of the lives lost there.

The second principle is that the very fundamental, core responsibility of government is to protect the public. The NDP believes we must do everything in our power to ensure that tragedies such as the one that occurred in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, never happen again. Fixing the liability for that is part of a necessary response to that incident, but it does not deal with the issue of prevention, which of course is the most important principle here.

The third is that we not only need stronger laws, but we need stronger enforcement of those laws and regulations. We need penalties on those who break them. It is clear to us and to the experts, such as the Transportation Safety Board, that the government has a very serious problem in terms of oversight, inspections and audits.

These are the three principles that will inform my comments on the bill itself.

Since 1999, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let companies self-regulate and self-inspect their equipment and railway lines. This approach is clearly not working to protect the safety of Canadians.

Since 2013 and after the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, Transport Canada has only hired one additional railway safety inspector. The number has gone from 116 in 2013 to 117 in 2015. What we need most of all is for the government to provide the necessary resources to Transport Canada so that it has the needed number of inspectors and auditors to fulfill its oversight function. Rather than cutting the rail safety director's budget by almost 20% as the government has done, the government needs to invest in that directorate's budget in order to protect the safety of Canadians.

The bill put forward by the minister is an effort to address some of the liability and accountability issues associated with railway safety, and its tragic and unfortunate history of derailments. It proposes several necessary fixes, but the fixes that it does propose are simply a start. As I have mentioned, it fails to address the most pressing issue, that of preventing these incidents in the first place.

We not only need stronger laws, but we need stronger enforcement of laws and regulations. We need penalties on those who break those laws and regulations. It is clear to us and to the experts that the government has not put in place the necessary penalties, oversight, inspections and audits to amend the record that we have of railway safety disasters in this country.

Bill C-52 sets out to do three main things. It requires minimum insurance levels for railways transporting dangerous goods. It establishes a disaster relief fund paid for by crude oil shippers to compensate victims of derailments, provinces and municipalities. It provides more authority to the minister, cabinet and railway safety inspectors.

It appears to me that these are measures put forward by a government playing catch-up on this issue of rail safety and have more to do with covering the costs of train derailments than with public safety itself. The bill sets out to provide compensation for victims of derailments after the fact, as if accidents and train derailments are inevitable.

These concerns of ours which we put forward today in this debate in the House are also shared by Safe Rail Communities, a community-based initiative started by people in Toronto. They have raised concerns about the liability amount, and that most of the amendments in this bill are retrospective and retroactive. They are after-the-fact measures. The Safe Rail Communities organization wants to see more preventative action by the government.

Nevertheless, the proposed changes remain necessary, and they do receive the support of this caucus.

When it comes to insurance, there is currently no minimum insurance level for federally regulated railways. However, the Canadian Transportation Agency is mandated to review the insurance coverage of railway companies on a case-by-case basis to make sure that it is adequate.

Bill C-52 would provide for a legislated minimum insurance coverage from $25 million for railway companies transporting minimal quantities of dangerous goods, up to a maximum of $1 billion for railways transporting more substantial quantities. Railway companies would be liable 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. Based on the cost of train derailments, these measures appear to be justified, at a minimum.

After the Lac-Mégantic disaster, for example, the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway exhausted its insurance coverage of $25 million and went bankrupt, yet damages paid by taxpayers have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. The Quebec government has estimated that the total cost of that accident will be over $400 million.

The second thing the bill sets out to do is to establish a pooled disaster relief fund that would be made available if the minimum insurance levels are insufficient. Railway companies shipping crude oil would pay a fee, starting at the rate of $1.65 per tonne shipped as of March 31, 2016. That amounts to 23¢ per barrel of oil. The fund would be capped at a total of $250 million to cover costs above the company's insurance coverage if it is involved in an accident.

For the 200,000 barrels of oil transported daily, Transport Canada estimates oil levies under the fund would contribute about $17 million annually to general revenues. While this is a step forward, there are outstanding concerns that this may not be sufficient in the event of another major disaster, particularly in an urban area. This levy would need to be in place for almost 15 years before that $250 million cap was actually generated. With the Lac-Mégantic disaster totalling about $400 million, it is very easy to see that a derailment in an urban area could almost inevitably exceed that $250 million generated through the disaster relief fund.

With respect to more authority given to the minister, cabinet and railway safety inspectors, we say that finally the bill would implement a number of changes to do this. For example, under the bill, railway safety inspectors would be authorized to order a person or company to take any measure they deemed necessary to mitigate a threat to the safety or security of railway operations. These amendments would also authorize the minister to order a company that is implementing its safety management system in a manner that risks compromising railway safety to take necessary corrective measures. These are clearly important measures to put in place.

While the government has a responsibility to ensure that tragedies like Lac-Mégantic never happen again, we also want to ensure that railways have enough insurance to cover all the costs in the event of a disaster, and as mentioned, particularly in the context of a disaster in an urban area. With that said, the amounts are clearly insufficient. The government should do more, and we believe the government can do more.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that no disasters like this take place again, that all of the costs are covered, and to put in place a polluter pay system to be applied to total environmental and cleanup costs of railway accidents. These must and should be borne by the industry, as is consistent with the polluter pay principle, and not downloaded on to taxpayers as they have been in the Quebec context. Once companies are fully liable for their actions, the safety of the public, and the safe transportation of their goods, we believe they will begin to take safety more seriously.

However, we are concerned that the insurance levels established in this bill are not sufficient. Insurance levels should be based on the threat to the public, not just on the type and volume of goods that are transported. Although the bill would establish a pooled disaster relief fund that would be made available if minimum insurance levels are insufficient, we also want to ensure that the fund is sufficient to cover all costs of disasters, including the unlimited liability for railway negligence.

To adequately protect the public from future risk, we want the government to pass the bill before the next election. We are concerned that the government will not make this a priority. It has been playing catch-up, and a bill like this is long overdue in light of the very sorry safety record that the government has with respect to rail safety in this country. That means that we continue to experience uncertainty and a lack of accountability, and communities along railway lines in this country continue to be exposed to terrible and potentially tragic risks.

If the Conservatives are serious about this bill and about these measures, they will take quick action. We in the New Democratic Party are prepared to work with the government—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

The time for government orders has expired. The hon. member for Beaches—East York will have three minutes remaining in his speech when this matter returns before the House.

The House resumed from March 30 consideration of the motion 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.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

When this matter was last before the House, the hon. member for Beaches—East York had three minutes remaining in his presentation.

The hon. member for Beaches—East York.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, increasingly, and I mean daily, the railways across the country are operating as virtual pipelines.

From virtually none in 2008, the number of barrels of oil moving across the country, through towns and cities, has grown exponentially. There were 200,000 barrels of oil shipped per day in 2013. This year an estimated 1 million barrels per day and next year an anticipated 1.4 million barrels will move through towns and cities, through farmland, by lakes and across rivers.

When this began, we had one inspector for every fourteen tanker cars of oil. As of last year, there was one inspector for every four thousand tanker cars of oil.

Since the devastation of the Lac-Mégantic derailment, including the deaths of 47 people, Transport Canada has hired just one additional inspector. That is over a period of two years. This is not what concern for public safety looks like. It is quite the opposite. It is a demonstration of profound disregard for what has transpired, for the risks that confront us daily and increasingly, and for the prospects of a more and ever-greater catastrophe as trains full of oil roll through densely populated urban Canada with increasing frequency.

While the bill, by way of establishing minimum insurance levels and a pooled disaster relief fund, and by increasing the authority of rail safety inspectors, is a small step forward, we support the bill because we believe it is essential to immediately improve the liability and accountability regime of Canada's railways. In the aftermath of Lac-Mégantic, the Government of Quebec, and by extension the public of Quebec, has been left with a liability of close to a half a billion dollars.

The bill does not nearly come close to acknowledging the nature of the problem, the urgency posed by the risks, the enormity of the potential disaster, the concerns of Canadians and, most critically, it fails to acknowledge the government's unequivocal responsibility for ensuring the safety of the Canadian public.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with intent to the member opposite's expressed support on behalf of the New Democrats, the official opposition, for the swift passage of Bill C-52, and I welcome that.

I know the opposition House leader is close at hand. Will the member ask his House leader to let this bill pass as quickly as possible rather than talk the clock out on it? I know it is in the interest of everyone that we move this swiftly, at least to committee for the next stage.

Will the member help secure a swift passage of the bill so we can move on to studying it at committee?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most assuredly the NDP is in favour of swift action and response to the frequency of train derailments, the concerns of Canadians for their safety and the safety of others, and the very real potential of looming disasters of derailments in the context of densely populated urban areas across the country.

It is the government that is playing catchup on this issue. The bill comes forward fully two years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster. There is no excuse for the government to have delayed the introduction of a bill like this to deal with the accountability issues for such a long period of time.

I am happy to assure the House and the Canadian public that the NDP will ensure that we move swiftly to get the right bill put through the House and ultimately passed by the House.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, would the member comment on the fact that in the last two years there have been 11 major derailments involving the transportation of oil in this country and in the United States? By some fateful luck, the only one that involved a loss of life was the tragic one at Lac-Mégantic. Clearly that is not a record that any government should be proud of, and I do not think the government should be proud of its actions to date on trying to keep Canada safe.

The bill would raise the amount of insurance, but ought we not protect the public rather than just insure the railroads?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a tremendous advocate in the west end of Toronto for rail safety on behalf of not only his constituents but all Canadians. He raises a critically important point about the frequency of derailments that we are witnessing across this country. I would remind the House that just last month there were three derailments and, thankfully, those derailments took place in relatively remote parts of the country.

However, as we see a million barrels of oil rolling through cities and towns across this country daily, we face the very real and imminent possibility of enormous catastrophes. There are, quite literally, tens of thousands of Canadians who live within a stone's throw of railway tracks in some of the largest cities. It is not, I should say, just about the transportation of oil by rail, it is also about all dangerous goods and the catastrophic effects of those dangerous goods spilling in some very densely populated cities across this country.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, legislation is definitely extremely important. Without legislation, we have no laws to implement. Parliament has to legislate, but the government has a fundamental role to play when it comes to implementing the law. It has to ensure that the law is enforced.

In its last number of budgets, the government allocated far fewer resources to inspection and enforcement at Transport Canada. As my colleague said, since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, only one extra inspector has been hired. There is a serious problem regarding not only the legislation, but also its implementation.

I would like my colleague to elaborate a bit more on the government's true willingness to ensure rail safety for Canadians.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises an excellent point, that laws and regulations are but paper in the absence of their implementation.

We have seen from the government no sense of urgency in responding to derailments across this country. The minister talks in the House about working diligently to deal with these issues and yet we have waited two years beyond the disaster at Lac-Mégantic for this bill, which is only a very partial step in a response to what we are seeing across the country. The most important step is the step that puts rail safety inspectors on the job, implementing the laws of this country, ensuring that the Canadian public is safe, and preventing further disasters and derailments across this country.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I would like his thoughts on what the parliamentary secretary had to say.

He thinks that we should limit our debates in the House in order to speed up a process that has been dragging on for two years already. If there is one thing I have heard myself say a number of times in the House, it is, “We will support this bill at second reading because it is a step in the right direction.”

I have a simple question. With this bill, could the government not do more than just take a step in the right direction and actually solve this ongoing problem?

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government is too easily satisfied with its very small steps. What the derailments and the government's lack of action on the issue raise for us is a system of rail safety that has been broken since the Liberals brought in the Rail Safety Act in 1999 where direct federal oversight over public safety with respect to railways was given over to a safety management system allowing the opportunity for railway companies to self-audit and self-manage the safety of Canadians. That is an abdication of the most fundamental responsibility that a government has, which is to protect the safety of Canadians.

The issue of safety has been raised now for years. In 2007 the Canada Safety Council sounded the alarm in a report about the deregulation of Canada's rail system. Here we are now in 2015 and the government chooses to take a very small step in the right direction on the issue.

The purpose of this debate in the House is to raise for the government and for all Canadians the broader issues about a rail safety system that is fundamentally broken and about the government's fundamental abdication of its most important responsibility, which is the safety of Canadians. There is a lot at risk here as we have seen from the frequency of derailments and in particular the Lac-Mégantic disaster.

The New Democratic Party will continue to talk about these issues in the House until the government changes its views on the deregulation of rail safety in the country, or until we replace the government in the House later this year.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate here today on Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act. The tragic July 2013 derailment in Lac-Mégantic was an unprecedented event that I know none of us will forget.

Our government's response to the tragedy has three fundamental components: accident prevention, preparedness and response, and accountability. Under the first two pillars, our government has introduced a number of measures to address issues related to rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods. Bill C-52 goes further to address these issues.

Today I would like to speak to the third pillar, accountability, and specifically the liability and compensation regime for rail. The Lac-Mégantic tragedy highlighted the need to further strengthen the rail regime to make sure that if an accident does occur, there are sufficient resources to compensate victims, pay for cleanup and protect Canadian taxpayers.

To do this, our government undertook a comprehensive review of the liability and compensation regime for rail. As part of this review, Transport Canada did in-depth research and analysis and consulted subject matter experts. The department also undertook a two-phase consultation process in which a wide range of stakeholders, including railways, shippers, provinces and communities, shared their views and technical information. All of the input and analysis generated during the review has informed the regime changes put forward in the bill.

Today, I would like to outline how Bill C-52 improves upon the current liability and compensation regime for rail and how these changes would benefit Canadians. Liability and compensation for railway accidents is determined through the courts based on fault or negligence. Under the current regime, the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Third Party Liability Insurance Coverage Regulations require that a railway company carry adequate third party liability insurance coverage as a condition of receiving a certificate of fitness allowing it to operate.

The Canadian Transportation Agency determines what constitutes adequate insurance on a case-by-case basis. This is based on an assessment of risks associated with the railway's operation. It also makes a comparison with insurance held by railways with similar operations and with industry practices.

Under the Canada Transportation Act, it is up to the railway company to notify the agency in writing whenever it cancels or alters its third party liability insurance coverage, or whenever a change in operations may mean that its coverage is no longer adequate. If the agency determines that a railway's third party liability insurance is no longer adequate, it may suspend or cancel the railway's certificate of fitness.

The Transportation Safety Board's report on the Lac-Mégantic derailment indicated that the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway did not notify the agency of certain significant operational changes, namely its increased transportation of crude oil.

Following the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, it also became clear that the $25 million in insurance held by the Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway would be insufficient to cover the scope or damage from this unprecedented and catastrophic accident.

In the 2013 Speech from the Throne, our government committed to ensuring that railways carry more insurance. Bill C-52 will implement four levels of mandatory minimum insurance requirements for railways. Under this new regime, the Canadian Transportation Agency will assign railways to a minimum insurance level based on specific criteria focused on the type and volume of dangerous goods hauled.

Railways that carry little or no dangerous goods will be required to hold $25 million in insurance. For railways carrying higher amounts of dangerous goods, there will be an initial requirement to hold either $50 million or $125 million in insurance, depending on the type and volume of dangerous goods carried. One year later, those requirements will double to $100 million and $250 million respectively. This phase-in will provide short line railways with sufficient time to adapt to these new requirements.

Finally, railways that carry substantial amounts of specified dangerous goods, namely class 1 railways, CN and CP, will be required to hold $1 billion in insurance. A railway's third party insurance will have to cover specific risks, including bodily injury or death, property damage and risks associated with pollution.

These new insurance requirements will ensure that the risk associated with a railway's operation is assessed objectively using specific criteria and that a railway's third party liability insurance is aligned with that risk. These requirements will also ensure that there will be sufficient insurance to cover the full cost of the vast majority of potential accidents.

As it stands in the current regime, there are no additional sources of funds to turn to in the event of a catastrophic incident other than the public purse. Often the process for addressing claims in such cases can be lengthy and costly, with delayed and uncertain outcomes for victims.

Bill C-52 ensures that the liability and compensation regime for rail will be able to address a catastrophic incident without burdening the taxpayers. It does so by creating a modernized two-tier regime to cover the cost of accidents involving crude oil, like the one experienced in Lac-Mégantic. This new regime will extend responsibility for compensation beyond railways to include shippers as well. It will also define the liability of railways in order to provide claimants with greater certainty of compensation.

In the case of a rail accident involving crude oil, a federally regulated railway will automatically be held liable without the need to prove fault or negligence. Railways' liability would be capped at their minimum mandatory insurance level and they will have the ability to seek financial redress from at-fault parties through the courts.

Federally regulated railways will also be held liable for crude oil accidents involving any provincially regulated railways operating on their tracks. This will ensure that all railway accidents involving crude oil that occur on federal track are covered through the new regime.

To ensure that liability is shared as designed in the new regime, the bill makes changes to section 137 of the Canada Transportation Act to clarify that railways will not be able to impose their third party liabilities on shippers, for example, through a tariff. Railway insurance will be the payer of first resort, and as I mentioned, would be sufficient to cover the cost of most rail accidents. However, should the damage from a rail accident involving crude oil exceed the railway's insurance level, the new shipper-financed compensation fund would cover remaining costs.

Shippers are part of the polluter pays equation, requiring them to share in the liabilities associated with the transport of their goods, and reflects the fact that the qualities of their product contribute to the risks and costs associated with an accident.

The proposed fund will be financed through a levy on shippers of crude oil. This levy will be set at $1.65 per tonne of oil in the first year. Following this, it will be adjusted annually for inflation based on the consumer price index.

The levy will be collected by federally regulated railways, remitted to the government and deposited in a special account in the consolidated revenue fund. Railways will be required to keep records on the collection of levies.

The Minister of Transport will have the authority to turn the levy off once it has been capitalized sufficiently. We are targeting an amount of $250 million, which we expect will be collected in approximately five years. This estimate is based on a reasonable projection of oil-by-rail traffic growth in the coming years. The minister may then turn the levy on again as necessary.

The shipper-financed fund will be managed by an administrator appointed by the Governor in Council. The administrator will be responsible for establishing and paying out claims once the railway's liability limit is reached.

To ensure transparency, the administrator will report to Parliament, through the Minister of Transport, on the fund's management. There must also be a special examination of the fund at least once every five years.

In the unlikely event of damages from a rail accident exceeding both the railway's insurance and the amount being held in the supplementary compensation fund, the federal government's consolidated revenue fund will cover the remaining costs. The government will then be reimbursed through the levy. A special levy could even be imposed on federally regulated railways in order to accelerate repayment of the amount charged to the consolidated revenue fund.

The two-tier regime for crude oil accidents will provide broad coverage of the cost of crude oil accidents. It will cover all actual loss or damage incurred as well as costs incurred by the federal or provincial crown in responding to the accident. The crown may also seek compensation for the impairment of the non-use value of public resources.

Oil is being transported in growing volumes over long distances across our country and we know that accidents involving crude oil can cause significant harm to people, property and the environment. Creating this second tier of compensation for large-scale accidents involving crude oil is another way that we are adapting to this phenomenon, recognizing the valid concerns of Canadians about the movement of oil by rail.

Enhancing compensation for rail accidents involving crude oil will complement efforts we have taken recently to strengthen rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods, for example, by improving tank car standards. However, recognizing that crude is not the only product that could cause significant damage if involved in a rail accident, there is flexibility in this regime to include by regulation other dangerous goods in the future. The two-tier approach brought forward in Bill C-52 will ensure that enough resources will be available to cover all damages stemming from a rail accident. The increased insurance requirements will hold railways accountable and provide sufficient compensation for the majority of potential accidents. The supplementary fund will provide an additional source of compensation for crude oil accidents and share liability more broadly with shippers.

Robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms are key to ensuring that the strengthened liability and compensation regime functions as intended. The Transportation Safety Board found that the regulatory requirements in place at the time of the Lac-Mégantic derailment did not ensure that an increase in operational risk was reflected in railways' insurance coverage. Therefore, this bill also establishes more robust oversight and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that railways comply with the requirements of the new regime. Railways will continue to be obligated to notify the agency of any changes to their operation that may affect their insurance coverage. Under the new regime, however, the agency is empowered to make inquiries to determine compliance and must suspend or cancel the certificate of fitness of a railway that fails to maintain the minimum mandatory level of insurance.

We have also introduced administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, as an additional means of ensuring compliance. The agency may apply AMPs up to $100,000 to a railway that fails to maintain the correct amount of insurance, or fails to notify the agency of a change affecting its insurance coverage. An AMP of up to $100,000 per violation would also ensure the compliance of railways for collecting and remitting the shipper levies and for keeping records concerning the levies. The Minister of Transport may designate a person to be responsible for assessing compliance and applying these penalties.

Finally, the agency will have clear authority to make regulations concerning the information it needs to verify compliance.

These strong enforcement mechanisms support greater accountability and are critical to ensuring the benefits of the strengthened liability and compensation regime are realized.

Another advantage of the changes brought forward under Bill C-52 is that they bring the liability and compensation regime for rail into step with regimes in other modes and sectors. The polluter pays principle, which is the concept that those responsible for causing damage as a result of their operations should pay for their liabilities, guides the proposed changes to the regime for rail. It is also at the heart of the regimes for marine tankers, the nuclear sector, pipelines, and offshore oil and gas.

There are particularly strong links between the proposed regime for rail and the marine tanker regime, both of which have two tiers: an insurance tier and an industry-financed fund. They share responsibility between different participants in the supply chain. The administration of the rail regime's shipper-financed fund is also modelled on that of the marine regime's ship-source oil pollution fund.

More important, the regime for accidents involving crude oil, including a shipper-financed fund, reflects our government's responsible resource development agenda.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of the measures put forward in Bill C-52. In addition to further improving rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods in Canada, this legislation addresses gaps in the liability and compensation regime for rail that were brought to light following the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

The primary goal of the bill's strengthened liability and compensation regime for rail is to make sure that in the future, should a rail accident occur, victims will be fully compensated and the environment will be remediated. It does this by holding railways and shippers accountable, not by burdening the taxpayer.

I therefore hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting the safe and accountable rail act, and help pass it quickly.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to ask my colleague a question about railway safety. My riding is actually very close to Lac-Mégantic, or just over an hour from the area that was severely affected by a rail disaster, as all my colleagues know.

I am pleased to see that some measures might reassure residents and allay their fears. What I hear most from the people living in the Eastern Townships and Lac-Mégantic is that they want the companies responsible for the spills or railway accidents to also be responsible for the costs resulting from a disaster. These accidents are unfortunate and there will probably be more of them because the number of cars transporting oil is increasing and the quality of the infrastructure seems to be decreasing. Therefore, these disasters could well happen again, as we have seen in northern Ontario.

Could the government member reassure the people of Lac-Mégantic and the Eastern Townships about corporate responsibility in the event of a spill that causes irreparable damage?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite who has been working obviously on matters related to the Sherbrooke Airport as well, in co-operation with the government. We appreciate his contributions in this House.

I want to assure the member opposite that with this bill the government not only is addressing the question of the liability of federally regulated railway companies, but it is also ensuring that the liability regime is shared, in the case of accidents involving crude by rail, to include the shippers, by a new fund, a new levy that would establish the supplementary fund such that when railway companies' insurance level has been maxed out, shippers then will participate additionally in any charges that may result. It might be compensation for victims. It might be for remediation of the environment. It might be the costs of municipal forces, such as firefighters who come to fight a fire related to an accident.

There are a number of charges laid out in the bill. I hope that the member will support it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in incident after incident, particularly in my province of Alberta, the determination by the Transportation Safety Board has been that despite inspections by the government and despite surveillance by the industry saying that the traffic should continue and the rails were safe, time after time, after the fact, after serious incidents, the Transportation Safety Board has determined that the company has replaced rail with defective rail, and it has serious concerns that defective rail simply is not being identified.

Could the member please advise us if he thinks that, given the exponential increase in seriously dangerous rail traffic, maybe it is time to restore ourselves back to a more intensified government surveillance system?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to address the exponential growth in oil traffic that is being talked about here. We heard at the standing committee on transport, in our recent study, that oil by rail actually went down by a significant amount last year, relative to 2013. There were some 35,000 fewer carloads, I believe, in 2014. That is not to say that with the pickup in the economy oil by rail could not potentially go up again. That is why we want to provide a safe regime, which includes liability and compensation.

The government is obviously sensitive both to the safety management systems functioning properly, with the creation of a safety culture for the federally regulated railway company and how it enforces its own practices, and to oversight. It has increased the number of railway safety inspectors by 10%. The number of transportation of goods inspectors is up by about 85%.

The government has taken the recommendations of both the Auditor General and the Transportation Safety Board very seriously and is acting on them to ensure that we are fulfilling our responsibility.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in the parliamentary secretary's speech, he talked about some of the consultations being held as part of the bill, including a process of a couple of stages. I wonder if he could comment on some of the things we heard, as part of that consultation, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and from the provincial governments about their support for this.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Tobique—Mactaquac for his intervention and for his strong work on this and a number of important matters the government is engaged in.

We conducted some exhaustive consultations. It was the two-step process the member alluded to and that I talked about in my speech. We were not only consulting with railway companies and shippers, which could be affected by a new liability and compensation regime that is jointly shared by both, but were seeking important information, technical information, and input from municipalities and other stakeholders. Those consultations led to the measures contained in this particular bill.

First of all, we are keeping our commitment that the liability regime should be shared. It is not just railway companies that would be required to be liable. The liability would be shared with shippers.

There is also the establishment of a new fund and in how the levy would be done to ensure that the taxpayers would not be burdened by the cost of either the cleanup or charges to victims. I mentioned earlier first responders and firefighters who attend to a fire. The costs they incur in their cleanup would be covered. Those claims would be fully compensated by the shippers and the railway companies.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that troubles me is the limit on liability. The Lac-Mégantic disaster resulted in about $400 million worth of liability, of which $25 million was covered by insurance. There is $375 million, so far, that we know of, of expense to the taxpayer.

Even if this fund were fully implemented, that would still leave $125 million missing. That is funnily close to the amount the Province of Quebec has been asked to pay, by the Government of Canada, for the failure of a federally regulated system, and of the owners of the vehicles, which is a federally regulated railroad, to contain the vehicles in Lac-Mégantic.

Would the provinces and municipalities be on the hook in the way they are in Lac-Mégantic? Will the government consider reimbursing the Province of Quebec the $155 million it has already spent on the Lac-Mégantic disaster, and it will spend more, as a federal expense, as it was a federal railroad?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the member has read the provisions of Bill C-52, in which the short-line railways would be expected to carry more liability insurance based on the type and volume of the dangerous goods they are carrying. That is one of the very first ways to ensure that railway companies are bearing increased responsibility for the safe operation and transportation of dangerous goods, specifically crude, by rail.

Beyond those increased levels of insurance, there is the supplementary fund. As I have said, we are targeting that fund at $250 million, but there is obviously flexibility in the way the mechanism of the fund and the implementation of the levy are put to place. That would be done for repayment.

With a review at least every five years, if the risks change, there is flexibility built into the law such that the fund itself and the amounts in the fund could be re-examined and, if necessary, adjusted.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Timmins—James Bay.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-52, an act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act. I would like to say at the outset that I, along with my colleagues, am pleased to see that the government, at least incrementally, is coming forward with some reforms addressing the concerns of the Canadian public. A good number of the measures in this bill are welcomed, although there may be some significant changes and additions we might want to add at committee.

I recommend that, top of mind, we recognize that the federal government has almost sole responsibility and power to regulate the rail sector, in particular the major lines. This is a mandate, based on my own experience too often in the past, not delivered effectively, both in preventing and responding to rail-related disasters.

Deep and widespread concern continues to be expressed about the risks that exponentially increasing dangerous rail traffic poses to Canadian communities, a concern shared by my constituents, and frankly, by all Albertans. Why the concern? A major percentage of hazardous rail cargo originates in Alberta, is shipped into the province, or is shipped out of the province to markets. Each time I commute from my home to the airport to head to Ottawa, parallel to me along the highway I witness continuous lines of tanker cars. In summer months, my cottage shakes from the heavy-loaded railcars, and I whisper a silent prayer, “Please, no derailment today”. I will explain my reaction and my fear momentarily.

I regularly hear complaints from constituents who are distressed that their daily commute is delayed by tanker cars blocking their route to work or school. Massive rail terminals constructed on the eastern edge of my constituency store and shunt loaded tanker cars close by businesses, a university, and commuter traffic. Residents of my riding of Edmonton—Strathcona loudly cheered the decision recently by Canadian Pacific to finally remove some of the rails that, until a few weeks back, shunted tanker cars, unsecured, right into the heart of Edmonton's historic Old Strathcona district into housing, businesses, and significant commuter traffic, mere feet away.

A few years back, the Hardisty town council expressed concern about the construction of a massive American co-owned crude-by-rail terminal that would load 120 tankers per day. In Bruderheim, the largest constructed crude-oil-to-rail terminal automatically loads 180 tanker cars, or 700 barrels, with 13-unit trains of diluted bitumen per day to be shipped south to the United States.

I met with Albertans protesting that a CN Rail siding, once used to load grain for now abandoned grain elevators, located 30 metres from two wildlife conservation areas, less than 200 metres from two homes, and 700 metres from a golf course, was being converted to shunt Imperial Oil tankers. Strathcona County councillor Alan Dunn dubbed the decision to store tankers in the middle of country, residential, and agricultural areas “an abomination”, in his words.

Albertans have experienced 3,421 rail incidents in the past decade, 1,700 of which were derailments, with 122 fatalities and 13 evacuations. This monumentally increased dangerous railcar cargo, coupled with the Lac-Mégantic tragedy and the continuing derailments of similarly dangerous cargo, have caused heightened public concern and increased calls for government action, including by municipal councillors.

To fully understand Albertans' concerns about hazardous rail traffic and their lost confidence in a government response, I wish to share highlights of just three major rail accidents that happened in Alberta over the past three decades.

First, the 1986 Hinton train collision between a CN freight train and a VIA Rail passenger train killed 23 people and seriously injured 95 others. Until the Lac-Mégantic disaster, it was the most lethal Canadian rail disaster since the Dugald accident of 1947. The resulting investigation revealed serious flaws in CN's employee practices. A commission of inquiry investigated the crash. Justice René Foisy, from the Court of Queen's Bench in Alberta, following 26 days of public hearings, condemned what he described as a “railroader culture” that prized loyalty and productivity at the expense of safety.

In August 2005, a derailment dumped over 700,000 litres of bunker C fuel and 88,000 litres of carcinogenic pole oil on the north shore of Lake Wabamun, essentially on top of the summer village of Whitewood Sands. More than 500,000 litres of the chemical entered the lake, with half remaining unrecovered.

Thousands of volunteers walked the shoreline picking up tar balls or rescuing oil-coated birds and wildlife. The shores of the Paul First Nation sacred lands were coated in oil. In the words of the provincial environmental commission struck to assess the government response, the event was a catastrophe for the community and a disaster for the environment. This important recreational lake was closed to swimming, boating, and fishing for a full year.

Who would have thought that in the oil capital of Canada, timely access to either the equipment or expertise to adequately respond to an environmental disaster of this scale, and so close to Edmonton, was completely absent? It was a major wake-up call, but are we fully awakened or ready still?

While the province at least formed a special commission to critique the failed response and recommended improved emergency response efforts, no similar effort was made by the rail regulator, the federal government. The commission identified a complete failed response and a lack of emergency preparedness and made significant calls for reform, including advance resolution of interjurisdictional responsibilities, including over first nation lands and people, and better management of rail transport risk prevention and response.

According the Transportation Safety Board, the cause of the derailment was rails replaced with faulty second-hand equipment. Despite these findings and recommendations, a decade later, another derailment of petroleum crude oil and liquified petroleum gas happened at Gainford, mere kilometres from Lake Wabamun. According to the report by the Transportation Safety Board, the heat from the explosion and fire was so extreme that flames shot across the highway, damaging a home on the other side. The Trans-Canada Highway had to be closed and around 100 residents evacuated. Similar to the findings by the Transportation Safety Board for Wabamun, the cause was attributed to faulty rail, unidentified by transport inspectors or CN inspections. It must be noted that another derailment occurred just two weeks earlier near this same location.

The Conservatives have promised time and again to rectify shortcomings with safety inspections and rail safety compliance measures. They have yet to fully honour that commitment. As my colleague pointed out, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have, in the majority, let companies self-regulate and self-inspect their equipment and rail lines. This approach is just not adequate. Rail traffic is now a major industrial operation.

Despite the growing volume of dangerous rail traffic and despite the related serious derailments, Transport Canada has apparently hired only one additional rail safety inspector, and the Rail Safety Directorate's budget has been cut by almost 20%. We need stronger regulation of this dangerous rail traffic, and we need intensified inspection and enforcement.

Bill C-52 does offer some important reforms to address compensation after a rail disaster occurs, including minimum insurance levels for railways transporting dangerous goods, a disaster relief fund, and greatly expanded authority by the minister, cabinet, and rail safety inspectors. However, these have more to do with the costs and cleanup after the fact. They do nothing to prevent further accidents. What we need is federal action to prevent rail disasters, including full, open, and public review and assessment of all proposals by the rail sector and its clients to construct new facilities or to substantially increase the volume of hazardous goods shipped.

The rail industry is the only major industrial sector almost totally exempted from the application of federal environmental assessment laws. Currently, federal laws bizarrely also completely exempt the rail sector from advance public scrutiny. Regulations under the federal environmental assessment act currently only narrowly confine the rail industry operations to be reviewed to where certain migratory bird sanctuaries are impacted.

The Minister of Environment is empowered to order that rail traffic that could cause adverse environmental effects or public concerns undergo an EIA. To date, she has failed to exercise that power, despite the growing potential threats to life and environment.

The government could also expand the powers of the National Energy Board to ensure that all exports of hazardous petroleum products by pipeline and rail combined, not just exports by pipeline, are reviewed.

An Alberta first nation, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation, has actually called for the National Energy Board to expand its mandate.

I look forward to questions on my speech and action by the government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend from Edmonton—Strathcona for her consistent work on rail safety. I certainly remember, really distinctly, the rail derailment that affected the lake and its impact on her home cottage. I am not going to once again stumble through the name of the lake. I apologize to my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona.

Very specifically, does the member agree that we should be doing much more to identify the most volatile types of cargo carried by rail and not have a definition that puts so many of them in the same category? I hope my question is not too vague, but I trust my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona can make sense of it.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a good suggestion, that we do a better job of identifying volatile cargo.

Frankly, I think we need to go much further. I find it astounding that this major industrial sector of Canada, a highly profitable sector, sadly for the most part now American-owned, is completely exempt from advanced environmental impact assessments to identify potential threats to health or environment.

I think what the member is calling for could be a part of that overall review. Let us remember that we built our rail lines right along our lakes and rivers because we originally needed that water to cool the engines. It is time to look at the potentially impacted communities or potentially impacted waterways. I think it is high time we actually open up the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and take a close look at the possibilities for closely scrutinizing the impacts of this sector in advance, instead of simply trying to compensate after the fact.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is indeed extremely important. However, the government's main responsibility is to enforce it. My colleague touched on that in her speech and I hope she will elaborate on it.

What we are passing today is fine. However, given that budgets have been reduced considerably and that only one inspector has been hired since the Lac-Mégantic disaster, how exactly does the government intend to ensure Canadians' safety with respect to rail transportation if it does not allocate the resources needed and implement very significant measures to enforce the law?

Providing reassurance is fine, but first and foremost we want to prevent accidents. We do not just want to address the problems caused by accidents. I would like my colleague to speak about this issue.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical that we have a much bigger review, not just of the personnel who are available on the government side to be inspecting and issuing orders for the protection of the public, given this increased traffic in hazardous materials. It is absolutely important that the federal government step up to the plate and deliver the kind of review that the Alberta government did, way back in 2004.

We would be well advised, certainly the members of the committee would be when they start looking at this bill, to look at the abject failure by all the federal agencies to respond to that spill, in their obligations to protect the fishery in Lake Wabamun and to respond in a timely way to the first nations, which they absolutely did not do, and also to get a handle on the fact that if even in Alberta, the oil capital of Canada, we were not prepared to respond to a spill of this nature, how on earth are we going to be capable of responding to that kind of spill of hazardous substances in any other place in Canada?

We need a much bigger review, and not one just tied to these narrow pieces of legislation that are tabled. It is time for a thorough review of our readiness to actually respond and prevent these kinds of disasters.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always it is a great honour to rise and speak for the people of Timmins—James Bay. I am very proud to be speaking to Bill C-52, a piece of legislation that is very important for this House. I would like to put in editorial parentheses that it is nice for a change to be debating legislation that has something of value to the Canadian public, as opposed to the so many bizarre hot-button sideshows we have been dealing with. The issue of rail safety is a serious concern. The government needs to respond.

We saw the horrific disaster in Lac-Mégantic, where so many lives were needlessly lost. However, we are also dealing with a huge increase in the transport traffic coming out of Alberta and Saskatchewan in terms of the carrying of unprocessed oil, crude, bitumen. We saw in the Lac-Mégantic spill the oil that was coming out of the Bakken fields that is very combustible. These are issues that have to be taken seriously.

As I say that, it is not just the oil industry that is involved. Many of our industrial sectors have an important role to play in their connections with the railways. I live literally across the street from the Ontario Northland and every day the huge sulphuric acid tanker cars come down from the smelter in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec. We have had spills, and those are catastrophic spills.

However, the kinds of spills that we have been seeing with increasing regularity as the increase of traffic is coming, particularly in the oil sector, have raised many issues about safety. In my own region, we have had in the last few months three derailments: one at Hornepayne and two at Gogama. One spilled heavy crude into the Mattagami River right at the site that I have been led to understand is fish-spawning grounds. There has been so much work done on that section of Mattagami River to build a better ecosystem for fisheries. To see heavy crude burning in the Mattagami River is a travesty, and it is an economic and environmental tragedy for the people who live along the river and in fact for all the people who live in my part of northern Ontario because the Mattagami is such a large river system.

There is not a lot of comfort from the promises of CN or Transport Canada that they will suddenly make this all better again. The minister said they will restore it 99.99%. I find that rather hard to fathom, how crude spilling into fish-spawning grounds can be remediated that easily. We look at what happened in Kalamazoo, Michigan when the Enbridge pipeline burst. For 18 hours after the alarm started sounding in Edmonton that there was a problem, no action had been taken. That blowout destroyed a large section of the Kalamazoo River. Five years later, the water is still damaged and it has cost over $1 billion in repairing the environment. These are serious issues.

We have to go back a bit to give people some historical explanation. Before we had this huge increase in tanker traffic, there was a belief, pushed by the Liberal government of the day, that if we allow self-regulation everything will be better. It is a blind belief that capital suddenly somehow had a sense of public duty, that if we pulled out the inspectors, if we pulled out the inspectors from the meat industry, if we pulled out the inspectors assuring health and safety, if we pulled out the inspectors of the railway lines and allowed the companies to self-regulate, people would make more money and somehow that would be a social good.

The Transportation Safety Board has talked about the weak safety culture that has existed both at Transport Canada and within the companies. Serious issues have been raised to the point where, after the latest Gogama spill, the Centre for Biological Diversity said, and I do not think it is that unfair to say, that the oil and railway industries are playing Russian roulette with people's lives and our environment given the fact that the transport of these goods cut through the centre of so many communities in our country.

That being said, we have to ask ourselves what the long-term solution is here. One of the arguments we always hear from the Conservatives is this. If there is a rail derailment, some kind of accident or any issue about the transport of oil, the Conservatives will immediately jump up and say that we need pipelines, that the New Democrats need to stand up and support pipelines. That is a bizarre, false argument but I am not surprised that the Conservatives say it because they are so much the puppets of the large oil interests.

I have been noticing that more and more my colleagues in the Liberal Party use that argument time and time again. I was actually shocked that yesterday when we were talking about rail safety, my colleague from Trinity—Spadina was talking about pipelines. I do not think he understands that we do not have to have either-or, what we have to have is public safety. We are a nation of transporting of resources. However one chooses to transport goods, it has to be done where safety is put ahead of expediency.

For my colleague in Trinity—Spadina who believes that the NDP is wrong on our concern about pipelines, we are saying that the issue of pipelines is the same as the issue with rail transport. What are the public protections that are in place if we are going to be moving raw bitumen through 40-year-old pipelines? That is a question that the public needs to have answered.

Whether they are concerned about Line 9 in the city of Toronto, whether they are concerned about the pipeline planned through the mountains of B.C., the issue is safety. Where are the shut-off valves? What kind of oversight is there going to be? What kinds of remediation measures could be put in place to stop a blowout? If there is a blowout in the B.C. mountain ranges, how are we going to remediate that? We know that would be impossible. If Line 9 blows out in Toronto, how could we assure the safety of the community?

It is a false argument to say the New Democrats have to choose between pipelines or rail. We say that whatever method is going to be used to move the nation's natural resources, the issue of safety to the public has to be part of the discussion from day one. There is a larger long-term issue in terms of safety with Canada's oil industry that needs to be looked at. What kind of nation has a vision for economic development that takes raw resources and ships them thousands of kilometres to put them on ships in the St. Lawrence to ship them to China to be processed? That is a bizarre, short-sighted view of economic development.

We have enormous resources in this country and we have to look at value added because when we do value added we are not only creating jobs, but we are also ensuring that the transport would be safer because we are not dealing with the unstable, unprocessed Bakken oil being transported. We would process it in Alberta or Saskatchewan and then move it.

The issue of transporting bitumen as we have seen from the Kalamazoo River catastrophe is that bitumen is very different for cleaning up than oil. This needs to be balanced and the best way to deal with that would be to have the upgrading and the processing at source. This is a long-term vision issue that needs to be addressed.

With regard to my colleagues in the Conservative Party and the Prime Minister who is going to create this energy superpower, we have seen after eight years of this hyperbolic talk that it has not come to pass because there has not been the necessary equal commitment to environment. We have become more and more of an international outlier on these issues. If we are going to develop non-renewable resources, we have to show that we do actually care about the environment.

President Obama turned down Keystone XL, much to the chagrin of the leader of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister. We look at what the EPA said about Keystone XL, that it was not in America's interests and that the effect of Keystone XL would be to add another 1.37 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The United States was looking at the Canadian government and saying for all its blunder and bluff on its energy economy, what has it done to ensure that it is balanced with the long-term environmental vision. The government had nothing to offer except more blunder and bluff and that it is not taking no for an answer from Mr. Obama. Well, President Obama and the Democrats' response is “talk to the hand”. If we are not going to balance environment and long-term security, they are not going to partner with us.

In our transport of oil and our natural resources, which we have been abundantly blessed with, what we are saying is that we have to balance environment, sustainability and public safety, that we cannot shortchange public safety because we simply cannot tolerate it and the Canadian public will not tolerate another tragedy like Lac-Mégantic.

Therefore, I support the bill. I think it is a first step, but we have a long way to go in addressing this issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on some of the member's comments.

One of the issues has to be the percentage increase of rail line traffic over the years. The amount of oil, gas and other cargo that is transported all over Canada concerns a great number of Canadians. An alternative to that is pipelines, which is why I was somewhat intrigued when the member said that the NDP opposed Keystone. The NDP opposes all pipelines, it would seem. However, there is some benefit to pipelines to ease the rail line traffic.

Does the member recognize that if we could get that social contract to build pipelines, we could ease the pressure from our rail lines, and all Canadians would benefit by that? Could the member at the very least acknowledge that there is some value to transport some of this product through pipelines? If so, is there a pipeline that the NDP would support?

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

There we go, Mr. Speaker. I rest my case.

Whenever the issue of public safety is raised, and should be addressed first, what do the Liberals do? They say that we have to support pipelines, that their leader supports Keystone XL. Well, the Liberal leader got slapped down by Obama because it was not a smart plan.

I do not know what the problem is with the Liberals if they believe we should just support pipelines. We say that pipelines have to be made safe in the same way that we have to make rail traffic safe.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this. Has the Liberal leader talked about northern gateway with people in British Columbia? Has he talked with Kinder Morgan?

If we talk to anybody from western Canada coming into the east, they will say that if we build a pipeline, we better assure them that it is safe, as opposed to the Liberal Party position that we have had another rail derailment, therefore is that not good news for the pipeline industry. That is a false argument.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Timmins—James Bay, whose speeches are always relevant and easy for everyone to understand.

A few days after the tragic events in Lac-Mégantic, I visited the area to get a sense of the scope of the physical damage. I could also see how much the people of Lac-Mégantic were suffering and how resilient they are.

We now know that it will cost around $400 million to rebuild the area.

Did my colleague see an explanation in the bill? We always hear about taking a step in the right direction. That is never enough.

How does the bill set a $250 million limit for the disaster relief fund, when the cost of the most compelling example we have is already well over $250 million?

What mathematical rule did the Conservatives use in deciding to do so little for such a serious problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a lot of respect for the work he does in the House.

It is clear that this bill is a necessary small step. This government needs to create a plan to protect Canadians. Moreover, we need a long-term vision for the development of natural resources.

This government has refused to discuss our obligation to protect Canadians and communities and to protect the environment. Our economic future will be based on an economy built on security and sustainability.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities.

I am honoured to rise in this debate to outline the measures our government is taking to strengthen rail safety and the transportation of dangerous goods in general and specifically to strengthen the standards of railway tank cars.

It has been said before, and it is worth repeating, that public safety and accident prevention remains this government's priority. It has always been and will continue to be the case. Our government remains committed to the safety of all Canadians and it will take all appropriate actions to ensure their safety during the transportation of flammable liquids, such as crude oil. Incidents, such as the tragedy that occurred in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, to the most recent incidents near Gogama, Ontario, reinforce our resolve to develop an appropriate safety regime that would protect all Canadians.

Our government has taken many actions to strengthen the safety of railway transportation and the transportation of dangerous goods following the tragic events in Lac-Mégantic in July 2013, and to address the recommendations in the fall 2013 report of the Auditor General of Canada. Since the Lac-Mégantic train derailment, we have initiated regulatory measures to strengthen tank car standards.

On April 23, 2014, under the authority of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, Transport Canada issued a protective direction requiring the immediate phase-out of the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tank cars from dangerous goods service. Roughly 5,000 tank cars in North America can no longer be used for dangerous goods service in Canada, but can be repurposed to transport non-dangerous goods.

On July 2, 2014, Transport Canada published regulations updating the legacy of the DOT-111 tank car standards to require thicker steel, half-head shield protection and top-fitting protection. All newly manufactured tank cars built for dangerous goods service, corrosives and flammable liquids must comply with this minimum standard. The tank car may be a jacketed or unjacketed tank car.

Transport Canada also introduced a requirement for proof of classification of dangerous goods.

On July 18, 2014, a regulatory proposal that would phase out DOT-111 tank cars and mandate an even more robust tank car standard specifically designed for the transfer of flammable liquids to replace the CPC-1232 tank cars was announced. The new class of tank car would include thicker steel and require the tank car to be manufactured as jacketed, thermally insulated tank cars, with a full head shield, top-fitting protection and a new bottom outlet valve. The proposed requirements would also require the CPC-1232 and the DOT-111 tank cars to be retrofitted to improve their features and crash resistance.

Our government has been working in close collaboration with the U.S. to harmonize the tank car standards and retrofit timelines as much as possible. We are in the final stages of developing standards for the next generation of tank cars for the transportation of flammable liquids. This would further reduce the risk of product leaks in the event of a derailment. We have expeditiously developed this new proposed tank car design, which would phase out the current DOT-111 and CPC-1232 tank cars for the transport of flammable liquids by rail.

The new tank car design would be the most robust tank car for the transportation of flammable liquids. In addition, to support the new tank car design, our government will bring forward retrofit requirements to meet the direction on the phase-out or retrofit schedule for the highest risk legacy DOT-111 tank cars, as announced on April 23, 2014.

The proposed TC-117 tank car, formerly referred to as the TC-140, would be the new standard for tank car manufacturers to use for the transport of flammable liquids in packing group I, II and III, such as crude oil, ethanol, gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel. Following publication of a final regulation, the TC-117 would replace the current tank car standard, which was published in the Canada Gazette, part II, on July 2, 2014.

Once published, the TC-117 regulation would provide a prescriptive or performance-based retrofit requirement to which all legacy DOT-111 and CPC-1232/TP 14877 tank cars would be required to meet. The regulation would also provide a risk-based retrofit, timeline schedule, which establishes the type of tank car to be used by certain dates for the transport of certain flammable liquids, either by specific name or by packing group. The TC-117 is part of a holistic risk-based approach to enhancing public safety during the transport of flammable liquids by rail.

Our government has taken a number of other actions on rail safety. We have introduced new train operation requirements, reduced train speeds, proposed new compensation and liability requirements, increased railway inspections, introduced new classification requirements, required the sharing of dangerous goods information with municipalities, expanded emergency response assistance plan program to include flammable liquids, and we have removed the oldest tank cars from dangerous goods service in Canada.

Our government has been open and transparent in our approach to bringing forward a new tank car standard. As evidence of this, anyone can go on Transport Canada's website and find up-to-date information about tank car standard and timelines associated with retrofitting.

Going forward, our government remains committed to working with industry; all levels of government, including the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and its national municipal rail safety working group; regulatory officials in the United States; and other key stakeholders, such as the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, to examine means of further improving railway safety and the safe transportation of dangerous goods. Thanks in large part to these positive and productive working relationships, we continue to make progress on this important file.

To conclude, while Canada has a strong safety regime for railways and the transportation of dangerous goods, our government continues to take action to improve the safety and accountability of Canada's railways.

We are confident that the actions we have taken, in collaboration with our partners, will set a stronger standard for the next generation of tank cars used to transport flammable liquids and by doing so, will reduce the chance of leaks in the event of a derailment.

The actions our government has taken go well beyond a mere response to recent rail incidents. Rather, we seek to assure Canadians that we are doing what needs to be done to strengthen the safety of our railways and the transportation of dangerous goods. These actions demonstrate our belief in the continued use of railway shipping and the transportation of dangerous goods, and they demonstrate our commitment to the safety and protection of all Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, rail line safety is an important issue to all Canadians. I represent Winnipeg North and we have the CP yards that go along the southern boundary. It is one of our boundary lines, and we know there is all sorts of cargo that is transported through the heart of Winnipeg.

There is the CN Symington Yards at the other side of the city of Winnipeg. The point is, everything goes through Winnipeg before it starts going out west, or through Winnipeg coming from the west, going out east.

There is no doubt that the residents of Manitoba are very much concerned about rail line safety. There is reason to believe, through a number of steps and initiatives, that this will improve, to a certain degree, the whole issue of rail safety.

Legislation is one thing. Another issue is how government chooses to invest in our rail lines. Would the member talk about the importance of government investing financial resources in particular in the infrastructure of our rail lines?

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my speech, rail safety is something that the government is taking very seriously. We have to transport our goods by rail, and rail safety has many components.

To date, we have invested large sums of money in infrastructure, but I would like to speak about some of the components of the safety of our railways. It includes all of the components. It includes equipment. I was speaking about tankers. Some of the members previously spoke about inspectors and a lack thereof

. There are many technological innovations that have been implemented by the industry. I will mention some. Many members probably remember times when the trains stopped and there was an inspector going and checking the wheels. Now, this can be done automatically by electronic devices that look for information on cracked wheels and send it to the locomotive. It is the same with the rails that need to be ground.

There are many elements. I do not think I will have time to speak about all of them, so I look forward to—

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to ask a government member a question about the disaster relief fund. I still do not understand what formula the government used to come up with the amount of $250 million.

To be more specific, is it not true that the $250 million will be recovered and go back into the government's general revenues?

If such is the case, that means that this fund could be used the same way the government used employment insurance contributions, that is, for purposes other than what it is intended for.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this question was partially answered by the parliamentary secretary during his questions and answers. He did mention that as far as the liability levels go, it is something that can be adjusted going forward. As the hon. member knows very well, this legislation proposes the establishment of a special fund that would be there to cover the costs associated with train derailments.

This is a work in progress. This is the second reading of a bill. I am looking forward to input from each side of the House, in debate and at the committee. This is something we can work on together and make better. Things can always be made better.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure and Communities]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise today to speak at second reading of Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act. As we know, this bill would amend two pieces of legislation that are important to the protection of our communities, the Railway Safety Act and the Canada Transportation Act.

Canada's economy and the livelihood of people in communities across the country depend on the transportation of goods, including dangerous goods, of course, at times. As the economy grows, so too does the transportation of these dangerous goods.

The bill before us takes important steps to improve the overall safety of the rail system by increasing regulatory oversight, but the reality remains: no matter what actions we take to reduce risks—and we want to take every action we can—we must also be prepared to respond to a catastrophic accident, and this includes being able to pay the costs and compensate for the liabilities that result. This bill would address this element by strengthening accountability.

Municipalities across Canada bear much of the brunt of rail accidents. The bill before us would help respond to those risks. The amendments to the Railway Safety Act contained in this bill would enable municipalities to obtain information to help prepare for effective emergency response. Where there is a serious incident that results in costs for cleanup and repair, the amendments to the Canada Transportation Act contained in this bill would ensure that communities would not bear financial responsibility for such disasters.

Let me first address the matter of emergency response and then move on to the subject of liability and compensation.

Our government has undertaken important measures to improve the ability of first responders and communities to deal with rail emergencies. We need to keep this important dialogue going among shippers, railways, communities, and first responders. Together they can improve planning and operational communications. They can identify best practices for accident protocols in both urban and rural situations.

I commend Transport Canada for establishing an emergency response task force that brings together industry and community stakeholders to examine national needs for emergency response to accidents involving dangerous goods. In this way, we will strengthen the links between communities and industry and identify ways to improve emergency response.

In the consultations on the need for more co-operation and coordination in emergency response, Transport Canada heard from, among others, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, and the Aboriginal Firefighters Association of Canada. Each of these organizations expressed concerns about the capacity of our communities to deal with rail incidents involving dangerous goods. Each has called for more effective sharing of information to support first responders.

This bill contains provisions to make that happen. It would authorize regulations to require a railway to provide information to municipalities when significant railway operational changes are occurring at that particular location. The bill would also amend the Railway Safety Act to provide new regulation-making powers with respect to a railway safety management system, or SMS. An SMS includes a risk assessment, a list of mitigation measures, and a plan to monitor the effectiveness of these measures. Regulations under the bill before us can require railways to share summaries of these risk assessments with municipalities. These two measures would help establish better communication between railways and the municipalities and would provide first responders with information they require to be fully prepared for emergencies.

I have been talking about the impact on communities of large catastrophic events, but I would also like to observe that the bill before us would remove from provincial and municipal taxpayers the cost of fighting smaller fires that may result from a company's railway operations.

These incidents sometimes happen as a result of railway activities, but because a train moves on before the fire is apparent, it can be difficult to ascribe cause and effect, and hence liability. As a result, the province or the municipality and their taxpayers are sometimes on the hook for the cost of putting out the fire.

This bill would amend the Railway Safety Act to give the Canadian Transportation Agency authority to determine whether a fire was caused by rail operations. If so, the agency could then determine the costs and require the railway to reimburse the province or municipality for these costs. However, despite all these best efforts, railways will never be able to prevent all accidents.

This brings me to a second component of this bill, changes in the liability and compensation regime for rail. Under the current system, a railway company must insure against accidents, but as we have seen with the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic, that insurance coverage was insufficient to cover the resulting liabilities.

In response, the bill before us would legislate the minimum amount of insurance that a railway would be required to hold, depending on the type and volume of dangerous goods the railway carries annually. This approach is objective and would provide greater certainty that there will be sufficient insurance coverage in the event of a railway accident.

Requiring federally regulated railways to carry minimum levels of insurance is a necessary first step for the government to fulfill its promise in the 2013 Speech from the Throne.

The second step is to put in place a regime that shares responsibility between shippers and railways, so that industry is held accountable. Common carrier obligations of the Canada Transportation Act require railways to ship any products offered for transport. This obligation benefits shippers, who can rely on getting their goods to market.

Given this, the bill would clearly establish the roles and responsibilities of shippers and railways in the event of an accident involving crude oil. Railways would be liable without proof of fault or negligence, up to their insurance level, for a crude oil accident.

However, to pay for liabilities that could be in excess of a railway company's mandated insurance level, the bill would require shippers of crude oil to pay into a supplementary compensation fund through a levy. This fund is called the fund for railway accidents involving designated goods. This fund would be used to cover the same liabilities for which railways are held accountable. The fund could later be expanded through regulation to include other dangerous goods.

To finance the fund, these amounts would be collected from shippers for the movement of crude oil and held in a special account in the consolidated revenue fund. Together these measures would ensure adequate resources were available to cover the liabilities associated with a disaster of the magnitude of Lac-Mégantic.

Through this, the bill before us would establish the polluter pays principle for rail transportation. The overall approach is similar to the regime now in place in marine transportation and is in line with actions the government is tabling for the pipeline, offshore drilling, and marine sectors as well.

In this way, we would ensure that victims and taxpayers are not on the hook to pay for the costs of emergency response or other liabilities associated with a tragic accident involving dangerous goods carried by rail. We would be balancing the common carrier obligations with shipper accountability.

These measures would allow liability for potential catastrophic rail accidents to be shared between railways and shippers, and it would result in transportation choices that better reflect true costs and risks.

The bill before us would protect our communities by helping to prevent accidents and by sharing information that improves emergency response, and if there were an incident, this bill would ensure that communities and taxpayers were not the ones who pay for the response, cleanup, and compensation. I truly hope that all members in this House will join me in supporting this bill.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with Bill C-52, the federal government appears to be suggesting that as it is the regulator it is also the responsible party when it comes to paying for or assuming the responsibility to regulate those who should pay for the result of a disaster or derailment. However, with Lac-Mégantic, the federal government has only paid a small portion of the actual cleanup costs. We are wondering whether this bill will cause the government to rethink its decision not to compensate fully the Government of Quebec for the costs related to the Lac-Mégantic disaster, part of which is because the railroad involved was under-insured.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely crystal clear that Bill C-52 would improve the safety of railways in our country and improve the safety of communities as well. That is our ultimate goal and intention. Should an accident occur, we would ensure that industry is held accountable where that is appropriate and that there is shared responsibility between the railway and the shipper.

Furthermore, with this bill we would ensure that there would be adequate levels of insurance in place, and in addition to that insurance fund, a supplementary fund for any costs over and above those insurance levels.

Clearly, these are measures which would significantly improve the safety of communities and of railways across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party caucus sees merit in the legislation. The member is the parliamentary secretary for infrastructure and I want to ask him a question which I posed just a while ago.

We all talk about the importance of our rail lines and certain things that we can do with legislation such as what we are talking about that would improve upon it. However, there is no doubt there is also a role for the government going beyond legislation and investing in our rail lines. This is a fantastic opportunity for the government to look at using infrastructure dollars to improve the quality of our rail lines.

I wonder if the member, given his position, might want to provide some comment regarding the government's attitude toward infrastructure spending on our rail lines.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his support of this important legislation, Bill C-52, and for his interest in the importance of infrastructure across the country.

As the hon. member may be aware, VIA Rail receives a significant taxpayer-supported subsidy to help with its operations. With respect to large railway operations in the country, we certainly expect them to invest in their own operations. That said, under the new building Canada plan, the largest and longest infrastructure investment in the country's history, there are eligible categories for certain short-line rail systems to support, in particular, small communities.

I hope my hon. colleague will help to raise awareness about all the various supports that the federal government provides for the railway system and for infrastructure in our country.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, which is strangely entitled “the safe and accountable rail act”. I would question the safe part of it, but it certainly is a way of making railroads more accountable for their actions.

The parliamentary secretary said a moment ago that the prime purpose of the bill is to make Canadians safer. I wonder how a bill that deals primarily with insurance and liability would actually make Canadians safer, unless of course, we are proposing to give over the regulation of the railroads to the insurance companies and make the insurance companies responsible for making sure the railroads are safe. Maybe that is what it is doing, but that is certainly not something I am in favour of.

It is a core responsibility of government to protect its citizens. That can come in any number of ways, but here we are talking about how to protect the citizenry of Canada from the actions of a federally regulated body, namely the railroads.

Protecting our citizens is not something the government should see as an expense on the expense line of the ledger, and yet that is all too often what we hear about. It is actually a duty and it is not something on which we should be looking to cut our expenses or cut taxes and make Canadians less safe. It is not something it should be seeming to do, but we have seen the Conservative government do it time and time again, in food safety, in airline safety, and now in rail safety, where we have a system that clearly did not protect the 47 residents of Lac-Mégantic nor the centre of that town which was destroyed by the rail system, which the current government and the Liberal government before it helped to create.

The bill is a step in the right direction. Clearly, the government seems to have adopted the NDP principle that the polluter should pay and that the person who is responsible for something like this should pay, but we think that this could go a whole lot further. There are flaws in the bill that need addressing, and we will discuss those in committee.

However, the bill would not really do what the government suggests it would do to make the rail system safer. It would make the rail system more financially reliant on the shippers and rail companies themselves and less so on the federal and provincial governments. It is a shifting of responsibilities. It is not a creation of safety per se, unless, as I said earlier, we are expecting the insurance companies to be the ones to manage the safety systems in Canada.

Why is there all this focus on rail safety suddenly in this country?

The focus is caused in part because of Lac-Mégantic. Lac-Mégantic opened our eyes to a number of other issues that face us in the rail safety world.

One was that there is a 500-fold increase in the amount of crude oil that is being transported across the country, and it is crude oil that we have also discovered is not particularly inert. In fact, it is very explosive. Once this oil reaches its containers, it catches fire almost immediately, in some cases with huge and explosive results, as was the case in Lac-Mégantic and a number of other places across this country.

As a result, we have witnessed, with that 500-fold increase in the transportation of these dangerous goods, an alarming increase in the number of incidents involving these dangerous goods. There were 11 in the past two years alone. They were major accidents involving rail and the transportation of crude oil.

Now, I will hear the Liberals yelling that if we are not going to have it in rail, we are going to have it in pipelines. Some of this oil, in fact most of this oil, cannot be transported in pipelines because it is too dangerous. It is too gaseous. It would create too high a pressure inside a pipe. It does the same thing in rail but in a much smaller container. As a result, while rail containers are apparently safe as long as they are standing still and not moving, those rail containers, once they are moving and break, have disastrous consequences.

We also have discovered that the containers the government has been using for some considerable period of time to transport water, milk, and inert substances, but only in the last few years have we been transporting enormous quantities of dangerous goods in these containers, were known in 1989 to be unsafe. That was over 25 years ago and yet the government did not do anything about this until last year.

Last year, the minister announced that 5,000 of the 80,000 of these railcars would be taken off the rail immediately and that the rest would be replaced over the course of three years. Then we discovered that the ones that are replacing them are not safe either. Now we have been told that we are going to replace the railcars over a period of 10 years because the DOT-111s and DOT-1232s are not safe for the transportation of oil.

What do we do in those 10 years? What kind of effective safety are we promoting for the people of Canada if the vehicles that are going by their homes, schools, churches and daycare centres are not safe? That is part of what we are hoping the government will actually consider.

We also discovered as a result of this incident, but also as a result of the good work by the Auditor General, that Transport Canada is not doing a good job in particular with regard to managing the safety management system, SMS, with which the Government of Canada has replaced the direct oversight of the rail system. In theory, where before we had random inspections by government inspectors, now we have a system where the government inspects a safety management system put in place by a railroad for compliance and that the inspection of that system is how the government inspects the railroads. The trouble is the inspection of the system did not happen. As the Auditor General discovered, it was not happening, and in something like only 20% of the cases where transport officials intended to audit a railroad did they actually do it.

The Transportation Safety Board also found that Transport Canada had not been doing a good job with regard to its inspections of the safety management systems of the very railroad that failed, MMA, Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway. We examined the results of the Transport Canada investigation. It found 18 separate causes for the incident, although the minister and the parliamentary secretary said it was just one individual. No, it was not one individual. The Transportation Safety Board said very clearly there were 18 separate causes, some of which were with Transport Canada. It did not audit MMA. Despite knowing that it had serious flaws since 2002, it did not audit it. It did not follow up on the safety deficiencies and did not oversee the organizational and operational changes which MMA made, including the one-man crews, which was part of the reason that this all happened.

We have a government that is responsible for Transport Canada, and in turn Transport Canada, with a 20% cut in rail safety over the past few years, does not have the wherewithal to do all of the inspections that it needs to do of the safety management system. We have a system that is falling apart all around us, caused at first by the Liberals and now continued by the Conservatives, a safety management system that is not keeping Canadians safe.

I come back to the title of the bill, the safe and accountable rail act. Yes, it does something about when there is an accident, but we should not be saying “when there is an accident”. We should be saying that there should be no accidents.

Last week at committee, CN admitted freely that there will be accidents, that there will be derailments. If we are going to admit that there are going to be derailments, how are we going to effectively protect Canadians? These railcars are not going to be replaced for 10 years. In the derailments that have taken place, such as in Lynchburg last year, the railcars carrying dangerous oil were the DOT-1232s, the newer more modern ones, and the train was going 24 miles an hour. In Gogama the train was going 38 and 43 miles and hour. In Mount Carbon, West Virginia, the train was going 33 miles an hour. In Galena, Illinois, the train was going 23 miles an hour. They all exploded. They all broke and exploded.

We have been told by the government that it is going to limit the speed of these vehicles in cities to 40 miles an hour. Clearly, even 23 miles an hour is too fast. If we are going to have derailments, we should at least make sure that the oil stays in the car when it derails. The only way to do that is to slow the trains right down, maybe to the speed that was in place after the Mississauga derailment, which was 15 miles an hour.

I welcome the fact that the government is paying attention to rail safety, but I wish the government would actually do something to make Canadians more safe.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting that the member made reference to the fact that it was the moving and braking that had the potential to cause issues. Would the member provide some clarification on the issue that VIA Rail will give priority to transportation of large freight trains that carry many of these dangerous goods to the degree in which VIA Rail trains pull to the side and allow the freight train to go through? My understanding is the New Democrats are advocating that VIA Rail should be given priority. If that is the case, we would see more of these trains carrying oil tanker cars having to do more braking and shifting of speeds and so forth.

Which system would be better for the safety of Canadians? Should VIA Rail continue to allow our freight trains to have the priority of going through? Alternatively, should it be reversed, where VIA Rail is given priority to go through and the freight trains would be expected to pull to the side?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty weak argument in favour of pipelines. If the Liberals are trying to suggest that VIA Rail is the cause of derailments, we are not here to talk about that. We are here to talk about whether the equipment that is being used and the manner in which it is being used is safe for Canadians. It is my belief that currently it is not safe. To throw up smokescreens is not helpful to this debate.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has quite a lot of knowledge and understanding of the whole issue of our rail system in Canada. He represents an area just to the north of my own in the city of Toronto. We are right in the middle of a large transportation hub through which much of the dangerous goods that traverse the country pass.

Could the member speak a bit to the issue of emerging and growing cities and communities around rail corridors, and what particular issues occur when we have more and more people living right next to rail corridors?

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, clearly my riding is one of those, like that of the member for Davenport, that has a very busy rail corridor running through it. That corridor is carrying DOT-111 and DOT-1232 cars full of very dangerous oil at reasonably high speeds. The residents in my riding and those in Davenport are all worried that the greater increase in numbers of these vehicles is exposing them to a greater risk.

The minister demanded that these rail companies investigate the possibility of diverting these cars around major cities as is done in the U.S. Unfortunately, Transport Canada refused to share those risk assessments with either the public or the parliamentary committee. Therefore, we are in the dark as to what risk these railroads and these speeds pose to the individuals who live along rail corridors and who live in my riding of York South—Weston and in the member's riding of Davenport.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the state of the tracks throughout the railway system.

Last summer I was at a railway crossing along the trans-Canada railway between La Tuque and Senneterre in the town of Parent. Every time an axle passed over a particular spot, the rails bent about an inch. Then, the train passed over a wooden bridge that is about 75 years old.

If our tracks are maintained according to the same standards used in Siberia, I am wondering whether we actually have any kind of safety in transportation.

[Mike Sullivan, NDP, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the system in Canada of railroads being allowed to let their rails deteriorate as long as they go slower along those rails. In those circumstances, individuals who live nearby are subjected to much slower trains taking much longer to go through and, therefore, making the rail crossings more dangerous. Those individuals are also subject to the notion that these rails are not particularly safe.

It all comes back to the notion of how Transport Canada is inspecting and managing the safety of the rail system in Canada.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place on behalf of the good people of Davenport in the great city of Toronto to debate a very important bill for the constituents in my riding of Davenport, and that is the bill to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

What we are talking about here is rail safety. I would like to let people who are watching know that in communities in Toronto, including the community I represent, and in fact, I myself live very close to a major rail artery, every day dangerous goods are carried through. The rail line sort of bisects the city of Toronto, the biggest city in the country. The train that ultimately exploded and led to the tragic events in Lac-Mégantic actually traversed right through the city of Toronto.

For many people that is a staggering realization, because there are thousands upon thousands of people who live literally metres away from the rail line. For them, the debate we are having is not just a theoretical conversation. It is not just about what happens somewhere else. It is about the very communities in which they live.

It is also important to note while we are debating this that in cities like Toronto which have rail lines criss-crossing and intersecting large areas of residential neighbourhoods, when the rail lines were first put in, many of those communities were not there. They were industrial areas, but development has changed the face of cities like Toronto and what we are seeing now are residential communities very close to rail lines.

For the people I represent what is in those tankers is very important. How we ensure the safe transport of what is in those tankers is very important to my community and therefore this debate is important.

As many of my esteemed colleagues in the NDP have said today, we are in favour of the bill, but support for the bill underlines some very serious concerns that we have around rail safety in the country. It is not just the NDP that has concerns about rail safety. It is not just members of my community in Davenport that have concerns about rail safety. The Auditor General also has concerns about rail safety.

I know the government always welcomes the views and opinions of the NDP here in the House, but every once in a while it is nice to quote third parties. In this case, I will read a bit of the Auditor General's 2014 report on Transport Canada's oversight of rail safety, because it is the oversight of rail safety, the implementing of a system of safety that the people in my community are looking to the government to achieve. While we support the measures that are in the bill, it does not go any distance toward ameliorating the concerns in my community around rail safety.

The report from the Auditor General really underlines and gives credence to the concerns of the people in Davenport. The report states:

Despite the fact that federal railways were required 12 years ago to implement safety management systems for managing their safety risks and complying with safety requirements, Transport Canada has yet to establish an audit approach that provides a minimum level of assurance that federal railways have done so. While it has done a few audits of those systems most of the audits it did were too narrowly focused and provided assurance on only a few aspects of SMSs [safety management systems]. At the rate at which the Department is conducting focused audits, it will take many years to audit all the key components of SMS regulations, including key safety systems of each of the 31 federal railways.

That is just not enough for the people of Toronto. That is not enough for people of my community of Davenport. This does not cut it. It is going to take years for Transport Canada to conduct the audits. By the time it has finished conducting those audits, hopefully the Conservative government will be long gone and we will have new regulations and new standards for rail safety in this country.

The guidance and tools provided to inspectors for assessing federal railway safety management systems are missing many key elements. That is not us saying this. That is the Auditor General saying this. For example, they contain few requirements to help inspectors plan, conduct and conclude on audits and inspections, and for following up on findings. This makes it difficult for Transport Canada to ensure that its inspections and audits are effective in determining whether railways are taking corrective actions where necessary.

Lastly, Transport Canada does not have a quality assurance plan to continuously improve its oversight of rail safety. Is it any wonder that Canadians from coast to coast to coast are concerned about rail safety? They may be, as we are, happy that there are steps being taken around insurance and compensation, but we need to talk about preventing accidents as well as who pays for them when they happen.

This is not just a case of red tape versus yellow tape. This is not a question of onerous regulations versus caution tape that we use to cordon off accident sites. This should be a matter of course.

We are transporting dangerous goods in record quantities and record frequencies today. Not only are our regulations not keeping pace with the changes, the government has diminished and stripped away oversight and allowed companies to do the oversight themselves. The Auditor General's report shows that Transport Canada does not have the tools to even oversee the oversight that the companies are charged with implementing.

Most fair-minded people would accept that when rail companies are transporting dangerous goods through municipalities, the municipalities have a right know what is being brought through their cities, not three months later, but before it happens. That is a fair expectation that most people would have, yet we have not had any of that conversation happen among Conservatives.

I know that in the Province of Ontario, the Ontario NDP has pushed for “right to know” legislation that would enable municipalities to know what was coming through their cities and towns before it came through. This would allow emergency response units and fire crews to at least be properly on guard. It would also allow residents to know what the risks are of what is passing right through their backyards. That is, in fact, literally what happens in Toronto and in my community. It is fair for Canadians to want to know that stuff.

When we look at the Auditor General's report, we understand the enormity of the deficit in rail safety in this country. It also underscores a massive policy failure with regard to the Conservative government and its unwillingness to nurture the clean energy economy in Canada. The Conservatives are leaving $5 trillion of economic activity in clean energy technology on the table while they continually pump out and transport oil products that clearly do not come with the oversight and safety requirements that they need.

Things like “right to know” legislation are vital for cities like Toronto, where we have neighbourhoods upon neighbourhoods growing and developing right along the rail line. This is not 1920. This is 2015, and we need to pull these regulations and safety requirements up to modern standards.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have worked together a great deal on the whole issue of rail safety in the city of Toronto. We represent very similar ridings.

The member talked about the need to prevent accidents. He cited the Auditor General's report that really highlighted the lack of supervision and the lack of regulatory structure and enforcement to ensure that the public is protected with these major shipping routes of highly volatile substances, such as oil, going through our neighbourhoods.

It was in 1999 that the Liberal government amended the Railway Safety Act that really accelerated deregulation of the industry. It kind of took off like a runaway train. Later they brought in safety management systems that turned safety over to the companies to regulate themselves.

Can the member comment on how effective or ineffective this has been, and how he thinks we should deal with this problem in the future?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Parkdale—High Park who has done excellent work in the city of Toronto on this issue of rail safety, and not just on the issue of rail issue but on many other issues.

It may be worth reminding Canadians that many of the people who have served on the front bench of the Conservative Party were also on the front bench of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party during the tragedy at Walkerton, which was in part connected to the very fact that inspectors, oversight and regulation of the water supply had been cut down and destroyed by an ideological Conservative government. It is the same gang here now.

It is no surprise that they would oversee or preside over the biggest food safety scandal in the history of this country. It is an ideological path that the government pursues, and it is one that does not put public safety first.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must point out that there is a seniors' residence on Turgeon Street in my riding that is located less than 100 feet from the rail line. In Rosemère, there are residences that back directly onto the rail line, which runs about 20 or 25 feet above ground. If a rail car were to ever go off the track, it would fall directly on those homes.

This problem can unfortunately be seen all over Canada. Too often, people built homes much too close to the rail lines. Unfortunately, I too have often seen with my own eyes DOT-111 cars travelling along the rail lines in my riding.

I would love to believe that there is no risk, but is it wise to agree to systematically hand over safety responsibilities to private, for-profit companies, as the current government is doing?

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the description of the member's community is very similar to many right across the country where neighbourhoods are very close to these rail lines.

We have given some of these rail companies carte blanche for decades upon decades. It is time for rigorous oversight and safety measures of the shipping of dangerous goods along our rail corridors.

It is vital. It is vital for the economy. It is vital for the safety of our communities. We have seen time and time again in recent history that the oversight and safety measures are not enough in Canada right now.

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act.

Before I start, I would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to share my time with the hard-working member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

There are three points I want to make today. One is why Bill C-52 is important. I want to also talk a bit about the approach that we are using and how this compares to other liability legislation in recent times, and then about some basic provisions of the bill.

The first priority of Transport Canada, as we know, is safety and the prevention of accidents, but if an incident does occur, the liability and compensation regime must be able to respond to and support Canadians and their communities. We must take the steps necessary to ensure that in the event of a catastrophe, sufficient funds are available to compensate potential victims and pay for environmental cleanup and remediation.

We all know, as it has been commented on earlier in the House today, about the tragic accident in Lac-Mégantic with the Atlantic railway in 2013. The cleanup costs alone have been in the hundreds of millions of dollars, but the railway company had third party liability insurance of only $25 million. The railway has subsequently gone bankrupt. The Minister of Transport has moved quickly following the tragedy to improve the safety regime that applies to railways, especially for the transportation of crude oil.

In January of 2014, there was an accident in my riding involving CN Rail just outside of Plaster Rock, New Brunswick, in a small community called Wapske. It was not a big thing like Lac-Mégantic by any stretch of the imagination, but there were a number of railcars carrying oil and propane.

It is important for us to represent our communities, especially rural communities with a lot of volunteer first responders and firefighters. Kudos to all the first responders who came to the scene during that accident and guaranteed community safety at that time, especially Tim Corbin, the fire chief at the Plaster Rock Fire Department, Mayor Fenner for Plaster Rock, as well as all the first responders and the hazardous materials people who attended the site.

Over the long term, though, we have to ensure that adequate resources are available to compensate third parties so that taxpayers are not responsible for paying. Indeed, the bill before us is based on generally accepted principles that polluters should be held accountable for covering the costs for which they are responsible. How is this principle incorporated into the liability and compensation regimes for other sectors, such as marine and pipeline? Let me share with the House a few observations on those.

I will begin with the marine sector. In the event of a marine oil spill, the financial burden of an incident is shared between those responsible for transporting the oil, the shipowner, and those who benefit from the movement, the receivers of the oil. In the marine sector, there are several sources of compensation for oil spills. This starts with the insurance carried by the shipowners themselves to cover their liabilities.

As well, Canada is a member of the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. This body administers two international funds to compensate oil pollution damage caused by persistent oil. In addition, Canada's ship-source oil pollution fund, which is financed by levies on oil shipped by marine, pays compensation for damages caused by spills of any type of oil from any ship. Taken together, this fund provides funding of approximately $1.4 billion per incident.

What if the extent of a marine spill damage exceeds that amount? Earlier this year, the government announced it would remove the per incident limit of liability to make the full amount of the ship-source oil pollution fund available as part of a world-class tanker safety system. If the costs of an oil spill go beyond the amounts available from the ship-source oil pollution fund and other sources, the government will ensure that the fund is temporarily topped up to cover damages and cleanup costs for the spill. These amounts will be recouped from the industry through a levy. In other words, the polluter will pay.

Another example is the liability and compensation regime for pipelines. In Canada, we are strengthening the regime to ensure that pipeline companies are responsible for damages resulting from an incident. The former minister of natural resources announced that the government will require oil pipeline operators to be able to pay for any damage caused by spills or incidents.

On December 8, 2014, the pipeline safety act was introduced in the House. The act would amend the National Energy Board Act and the Canada Oil and Gas Operations Act to, among other things, strengthen the liability and compensation regime for pipelines. Major oil pipeline companies would be required to demonstrate a minimum financial capability of $1 billion and would be liable for damages up to that amount, regardless of fault. Above that amount, the liability would be determined by who was at fault for the accident. If a pipeline company were to become insolvent as a result of an incident, the government would pay for the cleanup and compensation using the consolidated revenue fund as a backstop. However, the industry would be levied to recover those costs.

These are examples of approaches to liability and compensation in which the polluter must pay for the cost of cleanup and compensation.

The marine model is built around different tiers that enable the sharing of responsibility for those costs. For marine and pipeline modes, the taxpayers is protected when the government is able to levy industry to recoup any loan from the consolidated revenue fund.

The bill before us draws on those best examples from the liability and compensation regimes in these other modes and uses them to create a regime for rail transportation of dangerous goods. First, it would apply the polluter pays principle to rail freight transportation through mandatory minimum insurance levels. This insurance would cover third-party liabilities resulting from any type of rail incident. In addition, it would establish a fund to cover the cost of major accidents involving crude oil that exceeds a railway company's insurance level. The regime could later be expanded to include other designated goods.

Under the bill before us, mandatory minimum insurance requirements would be imposed on federally regulated railways, depending on the type and volume of crude oil and other dangerous goods they transport. Railways that carry small quantities of dangerous goods would be required to hold $25 million in insurance. For railways carrying higher amounts of dangerous goods, there would be an initial requirement to hold either $50 million or $125 million in insurance, depending on the volume. One year later, those requirements would rise to $100 million and $250 million respectively. This approach would provide short-line railways with sufficient time to adapt to these new requirements so that there would be a certain predictability for that business and for its customers.

Finally, railways carrying substantial amounts of specified dangerous goods, such as class one railways, would be required to hold $1 billion in insurance. The Canadian Transportation Agency would assign each railway an insurance level based on its traffic and would review insurance coverage to ensure that each railway carried the appropriate amount. Railway companies would be required to inform the agency of any changes that would affect their insurance coverage. The agency would be authorized to make inquiries as necessary for assessing compliance. If a railway company failed to comply with the insurance requirements or to notify the agency of an operational change that would affect its insurance, it would be subject to an administrative monetary penalty of up to $100,000 per violation.

One thing we should understand about this insurance, and I heard in some of the comments in the debate earlier today about insurance and what it does, is that it can also be preventative. Insurance will add a certain amount of rigour to this process, because to obtain coverage, the companies themselves will have to have proper safety management systems and will have to account for that as well. In my view, that will also ensure that they up their game when it comes to their safety management systems.

The second tier of funding would be provided by shippers of crude oil collectively. They would be required to pay a levy of $1.65 on each ton of crude oil carried by a federally regulated railway as a condition of its movement. These amounts would be held in a special account in the consolidated revenue fund called the “fund for railway accidents involving designated goods”. Should the cost of an accident involving crude oil exceed the mandated third-party insurance, this account would be used to compensate for remaining liabilities.

The bill before us would establish this new regime. It is consistent with other polluter pays regimes we are having in the marine and pipeline industries, and it is a regime we need in place in response to the tragedy we saw at Lac-Mégantic and to what we saw on a smaller scale outside my community of Wapske. Doing what we are doing demonstrates that we are determined to learn from these incidents to build a more comprehensive liability and compensation regime for the future.

I can tell from the debate that many of my colleagues in this House support this bill going to committee, and I look forward to their support as we send it to committee for further study.

[Eve Adams, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, each and every year that the Conservative government has been in power, it has spent more money on advertising than on rail safety. This is true even this year, when it is spending $42 million promoting income splitting and only $38 million on rail safety. Could the hon. member tell me if he thinks those priorities are correct?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that in the past few years we have probably spent a bit of money in her riding, so it is funny that the hon. member is asking that question.

The minister has been very conscious of what she has learned from the Auditor General's report and is taking action on railway safety. As I pointed out, when we add the private element of insurance to this, I think there will be an extra level of rigour brought by the private insurance business, which will encourage much more safety and a safety culture in the railways, not only for class 1 railways but for the short-line railways. I think Canada will be a winner after that.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, while there are elements in this bill I could find myself supporting, there is a larger question. We have had in northern B.C. a number of derailments, unfortunately, like much of the rest of the country. When I talk to first responders, fire chiefs, ambulance attendants, and emergency responders, their concerns are primarily around the safety equipment and the training, particularly as there has been a large increase in materials of different compositions, more toxic materials, and more flammable and explosive materials.

As my friend pointed out in his speech, there are new forms of oil coming through. I believe that 70% or 80% of all the fire departments across the country are volunteer-based. They do not have access to the training or to funds to have the equipment on hand to deal with a major spill of much of what is now transported by rail.

My question for my friend across the way is this: Is there not a need for the federal government, which permits and sanctions a lot of this transport, to come in and be a willing partner in helping many of these fire departments and first responders across the country have the equipment when an accident happens, because we know that one is going to happen again, to protect their communities and protect those first responders, who are often putting the most on the line?

[Mike Allen, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, because every fire department in my riding is a volunteer fire department, so I understand that very well.

The incident I referred to in Plaster Rock was a good example in terms of some of the provisions in this bill. One of the provisions would allow the minister regulatory authority to provide information to the municipalities so that they know what is coming through. There is some provision in the bill that is on the front end of what he is talking about.

Second, I know that the volunteer firefighters have made presentations to me and were in visiting the fire chiefs, as well, to talk about another kind of levy to provide a fund for that training. That is not contemplated in this bill. However, I am sure that is something the government could be thinking about going forward.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to stand and speak in this great place. Today it is regarding Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act.

The bill would fulfill its title, in part, by strengthening the authorities of the Minister of Transport and the rail inspectors of Transport Canada in their efforts to maintain and improve the rail safety regime of Canada's rail transportation system. This is especially vital in the transportation of dangerous goods, including crude oil.

Canada has a good rail system. Some would argue that it is among the best in the world, both in terms of safety and in its ability to deliver transportation services that enable shippers to compete in a global economy. Under the current safety regime, 99.997% of dangerous goods transported by rail arrive safely. That is quite an impressive statistic, but we also know that we can never rest while there are still means available to increase that number even further.

Hon. members may recall that in May 2013, the Safer Railways Act introduced new safety provisions. It strengthened Transport Canada's oversight and enforcement capacity by giving it the authority to make regulations and by requiring all railways to meet regulatory requirements to obtain a safety-based Railway Operating Certificate. Transport Canada's enforcement powers were also strengthened at that time with the implementation of administrative monetary penalties. Existing judicial penalties were also increased.

Now, with the safe and accountable rail act before us, we go further. We would respond to issues raised by the 2007 review of the Railway Safety Act, the 2013 report of the Auditor General, and the recent report of the Transportation Safety Board on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Each has called attention to the need for Transport Canada to strengthen its oversight regime for rail.

The bill before us would provide the Minister of Transport and the railway inspectors with more oversight of railway safety and the ability to act when they believe that action is required to address threats to safety.

Bill C-52 would amend subsection 47.1(1) to enable information-sharing regulations that would require railways, for example, to prepare a summary of any risk assessment they have conducted. The summary would also include the mitigation measures identified and the plan to monitor the effectiveness of the mitigation plan itself.

Under future regulations, this summary would be shared with parties affected by any significant change to railway operations. In other words, local municipalities would be informed of changes to operations that would have an effect on safety in their communities. That was just addressed a few minutes ago.

Section 37 of the Railway Safety Act would be amended to permit the sharing of information related to safety. Detailed information on a risk assessment, for example, would be required to be provided to the minister under the terms of the Canada Transportation Act.

The bill would also require railway companies to comply with engineering standards, and failure to comply with these standards would then mean that they broke the law.

Under section 31, railway inspectors would be given broadened authority to issue notices and orders where there was a threat or an immediate threat to safety. Under the current regulatory regime, Transport Canada inspectors are limited in how they require railways to address safety concerns. The bill would broaden that authority so that in the case of an immediate threat, the inspector would have the power to order any appropriate corrective measures to be taken.

The Minister of Transport would be given new powers and authorities under this bill. When she believed that there was a particular threat to safety, she could order a company, road authority, or municipality to take corrective action, stop any action, follow any procedure, or suspend operation. This would give the Minister of Transport a powerful tool to oversee the safety of Canada's rail transportation system. Bill C-52 would also extend this new oversight authority to the safety management systems created by the railways.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions about the safety management systems, or the SMS. They do not represent an abdication of the government's responsibility to regulate and monitor railway safety by passing it off to the railways themselves. Rather, the SMS create an additional level of safety management to how the railways actually operate. An SMS includes, for example, safety goals and performance targets along with risk assessments.

In addition to following existing rules and regulations, the railways needs to identify hazards and mitigate risks to prevent accidents, often learning from minor incidents and trend analysis on day-to-day operations.

Transport Canada has created regulatory requirements around safety management systems, and oversees a railway's compliance to the SMS regulations. The department assesses the SMS documents developed by the railways and conducts periodic inspections and audits.

The role of safety management systems in all modes of transportation was studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, but in the meantime, our government has taken steps to increase the regulatory enforcement of an SMS in rail and has given the minister authority to apply it in an effort to promote a safer railway systems.

Under the bill before us, if the minister believes the manner in which the railway is implementing its safety management system in fact compromises safety, the Minister of Transport can use a ministerial order to direct a company to take specific necessary actions. In this way, the SMS truly becomes another level of safety prevention, adding to the measures already in place to ensure safe and secure transportation.

Another component of the changes to the Railway Safety Act gives new authorities to the Canada Transportation Agency. A new section 23 of the act would permit a province or municipality to apply to the Canada Transportation Agency to recoup costs it must pay as a result of putting out fires believed to be caused by railway operations. Previously, these costs were paid for by the province, the municipality and taxpayers.

The Canada Transportation Agency would then determine whether, in its view, the fire was indeed caused by a company's railway operations. Sometimes those are very difficult to determine on rolling stock. It would determine whether the fire was indeed caused by a company's railway operations, what the costs were and would require the railway to reimburse the provinces or municipality for those costs.

There are many ways in which the safe and accountable rail act would give new force to the regulatory authorities and promote the safety and security of our rail system. We are taking the transportation system and making it better.

Clearly, this is a significant endeavour that will improve rail safety and its protection. Therefore, supporting Bill C-52 is a reasonable and sensible thing to do.

The House resumed consideration of the motion 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.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the bill would make some modest progress in rail safety, the constituents in the area I represent in Parkdale—High Park, who have tanker after tanker of highly volatile, highly flammable substances going right by their homes, behind their bedroom windows, are very concerned about the possibility of some kind of catastrophic accident taking place in a highly-populated area, like our neighbourhood.

While there would be some modest improvements in insurance coverage, could the member tell me why there is not more significant attention and urgency being given to regulatory safety, stricter regulatory measures and also better enforcement?

Certainly the Auditor General has indicated that lack of enforcement and a real lackadaisical approach to the safety enforcement by Transport Canada was a key part of the disaster in Lac-Mégantic.

Could he tell me why the government has not put greater urgency on that part of prevention?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is the case regardless of where we live. In my riding, which is quite a rural riding with small towns, the lights will go on, the warning signals go down and a constant line of oil cars will go by. A number of years ago, that was not the case, but we are in a new time.

The proposed safe and accountable rail act addresses just the things the member has brought forward in a couple of ways. Issues were raised back in 2007 about the Railway Safety Act. The bill would make improvements based on those suggestions. As well, there were the comments of the Auditor General in his report of 2013 and also the Transportation Safety Board's recommendation that came from the Lac-Mégantic tragedy.

We have taken very enthusiastic steps forward to help with the prevention of rail accidents and protection of our communities, as well as some unforseen costs because of an accident with which they may be caught.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal caucus recognize there is some value to the legislation. It would make some improvements in rail safety and so forth.

The question I have for the member is somewhat related to the type of question I asked earlier today.

It is often great to see a government bring forward legislation, but people want to see more than just the legislative component. There has been a great deal of concern in the government's lack of interest in investing through infrastructure programming and what it could potentially be doing to improve the quality of our rail line system.

Could the member share his thoughts on how infrastructure dollars could potentially be used to provide additional safety to our rail lines?

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Winnipeg North who is here every day challenging, which is great because he has brought up a very good point.

In terms of the investment in infrastructure, as members know, we have made a significant investment to the primary line 1 rail systems. The other part, as in my area, is in the short lines.

We have introduced the largest infrastructure program in Canadian history. Part of that will help in some parts of my area, because it is a smaller community. My largest populated urban area is 14,000. Therefore, when I talk about small communities, we now have dollars that are available for municipalities that would actually take over some of the short lines if they come. Now they have those funds to help upgrade and maybe procure those short lines.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Mississauga—Brampton South.

The Liberals share Canadians' concern about rail safety in Canada. After the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, the government promised to take steps to ensure the safety and integrity of Canada's rail network. However, in the past two months, there have been three major derailments in Ontario alone. In March, one of those trains, which was transporting dangerous goods, burned for a whole weekend.

In my riding, Toronto Centre, two rail lines used to transport crude oil go through residential neighbourhoods. Residents and community organizations, such as Safe Rail Communities, are worried and want the government to introduce safety measures and regulations to protect them from potential dangers. However, Transport Canada's rail safety directorate lacks staff, funding and training.

Transport Canada has a lot of catching up to do, but its budget was cut by $202 million, or 11%, in the main estimates. These cuts followed a scathing report by the Auditor General, who pointed out that the government had conducted just 26% of the required audits and did not audit VIA Rail, even though the company transports 4 million passengers a year. The report also revealed that the government does not have enough inspectors and system auditors to audit critical safety functions. When the Liberal critic questioned the minister in committee in March 2015, the minister said that a single additional inspector had been hired, which brings the total number of inspectors to 117.

This latest bill is yet another example of the Conservatives' piecemeal approach to rail safety. The Transportation Safety Board said in February that the Conservatives' new rail standards do not go far enough, and the recent accidents support that assertion. The TSB clearly stated that the older, least safe tank cars should be removed from the rails immediately. The government's timeline for removing these cars is unrealistic, and the Conservatives know it.

Railways united Canada, and many of us still live close to those same railways that helped build our country. The government has a duty to ensure that Canadians who travel on these railways and who live close to them are safe, and it also has a duty to keep the employees of rail carriers safe.

I represent Toronto Centre, which is a riding where rail safety is an issue of intense community concern. Last fall, my colleagues the member for Trinity—Spadina, the member for St. Paul's, and I held a town hall. We held it on a cold autumn night. It was a Friday, and 200 people showed up to discuss this issue. For me, that was a real measure of how strongly the community feels about this issue.

This is not some remote technical question for my constituents, for the people I have the privilege of representing in this House. This is something that people are concerned about every day, that people worry in a very real, very present way affects the safety of their families, the safety of their children.

We are planning to hold another town hall meeting in April, in a few weeks, simply because there was such intense community concern about this issue. I cannot underscore too much for this House how central this issue is, and what priority we must accord it.

Something that we hear every day, and that we heard again today in question period, is one of the threads that runs through the government's philosophy, and that is a point of view which for me feels like warmed over 1990s U.S. Republicanism. It is a “starve the beast” philosophy, a philosophy that says the central responsibility of government is to cut taxes so that government services can be cut. That really is the central ideological idea of the government.

I personally, as a Liberal, strongly disagree with that philosophy and that point of view. I do not think it makes sense for our economy, and it does not make sense for our society.

I hope that in this House, regardless of the party to which we belong, this is one area where we can all agree that government plays an essential role. Government cannot be underfunded. Regulators must be given the authority they need. We cannot count on industry to regulate itself in this crucial matter of rail safety which touches on the personal safety of so many Canadian families.

My concern is that Transport Canada's rail safety division is understaffed, underfunded and undertrained. It is a division which has been a victim of the revolving door of Conservative ministers, with five ministers in nine years.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that another essential aspect of the rail safety issue to which one of the hon. members opposite has just alluded is the fact that we are seeing far more oil being transported by rail than in the past. That is a big part of the reason that rail safety has jumped so high up the agenda of the people whom I represent in Toronto Centre.

People know, even though the level of information given in a timely manner about what is being transported is low, and people appreciate that vastly increased amounts of crude oil are being shipped along our railway lines. That has increased both the perception and the reality of the potential danger that this poses.

I must say that reality did not happen by accident. The reality that so much oil is being transported by rail at great cost and posing a great potential public safety hazard is the fault of the Conservative government which has failed to get the pipelines built that Canada's natural resource producers need to get our resources to market.

That failure is partly a failure of a relationship with aboriginal people. It is partly a failure of relationships with the provinces. It is partly a failure of relationships with local communities. It is, above all, a failure of diplomacy and building an effective productive relationship with the United States, our most important neighbour, our most important trading partner.

This is a failure that is of tremendous concern to the people I represent in Toronto Centre, because they feel, quite rightly, that it has put their communities in greater danger. What is really astonishing to me is that it is a failure which, above all, has caused problems for the Canadian economy as a whole.

In closing, we do see some modest improvements in this bill, but we feel that it does not go far enough. What we would like to see above all is a comprehensive, effective strategy for transporting Canada's natural resources and getting them to market.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the main line of CN Rail also runs through my riding of Kingston and the Islands. I held a town hall meeting, and one of the things that we learned is that because of the underfunding in Transport Canada, the dangerous goods division has lost senior management and institutional memory. These sorts of things are very hard to replace simply by restoring funding and hiring new people.

It is also the case that there has been a revolving door of ministers in Transport Canada under the Conservative government. I was wondering if my colleague could comment on that.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely right. There are a couple of issues here. As my hon. colleague has pointed out and as I mentioned in my remarks, the revolving door of ministers has not helped this situation. Equally though, we have seen a real erosion of expertise in the division responsible for rail safety.

In Canada, we are very lucky to have some excellent, dedicated, devoted public servants who have tremendous experience and cultural experience in their institutions. One of the tragic legacies of the Conservative government is the hollowing out of those institutions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague. I have put this question to the government before. Legislation is one way that we can deal with the issue of rail safety, but another way is how we spend our resources. The government, for example, through investment in infrastructure could make a difference and make our rails safer.

I wonder if my colleague might want to comment on the fact that if the government really wanted to, it could demonstrate leadership by working with some of the stakeholders, such as our cities, municipalities and provinces, to see how we could better invest in the infrastructure which would improve our rail lines.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. Part of the answer here is better regulation, more regulators, and regulators who have the experience and authority to enforce the rules.

However, there is another part of the problem, which I have been hearing about from concerned people in my community. They are people who either have a past history of being involved in this industry, or in many cases, people who simply describe themselves as concerned mothers who have educated themselves about this issue and have become involved because they are worried about the safety of their kids. What they report to me is a tremendous decline in the infrastructure of the railways themselves.

One of the reasons that we will be putting forward a very ambitious infrastructure program is precisely to repair and rebuild these railways, which have been the backbone of Canada.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is also my understanding that a lot of freight lines go back and forth across the border between Canada and the United States. Therefore, there is a need to harmonize regulations, for example, having two engineers instead of one.

I was wondering if my colleague could comment on this additional fact, which makes the relationship between Canada and the United States important.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point from my colleague. One of the things that has been a real issue is the perception that I hear from our American counterparts that Canada is dragging its feet when it comes to rail safety. That, to me, as a Canadian legislator, is a real matter of concern.

We should not rely on the Americans to pass rules to keep our people safe. We should do it ourselves.

[Eve Adams, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians across the country rely on a safe, well-regulated rail system to get food from farm to fork, to get resources to employers and consumers, and to travel, whether it is to visit loved ones or to get to work. Canadians have a right to feel safe when travelling by rail. They should feel, when potentially dangerous goods are being shipped across the country and through their communities, that their families and homes are not at risk. It is the government's responsibility to ensure the safety of Canadians who travel on the rails or live near the rail lines, as well as the safety of the people who work on those rail lines.

Nearly two years ago, Canadians were stunned and saddened by the news of a derailment at Lac-Mégantic that took the lives of 47 people and demolished a portion of the town. This is the deadliest rail accident since Confederation in 1867. In the weeks following that tragedy, the Conservative government promised decisive action to ensure the safety and integrity of our rail system, but nearly two years later, we have no more guarantees than before, and the government is largely missing in action on this file.

The government's piecemeal approach to rail safety has done nothing to prevent the three derailments Ontario has seen over the course of February and March alone. This March, one of those trains, a train carrying dangerous goods, was on fire the entire weekend in Ontario. When asked recently about the derailments, the minister expressed her concern and stated, “There must be reasons behind it. It cannot just be a fluke of nature”.

I do not know if Canadians can be reassured from that type of answer from the minister, who is responsible for guaranteeing train safety. Perhaps the minister might look to the rail safety division in her department, which is understaffed, underfunded, and undertrained. It falls to the Minister of Transport to order railway companies to develop specific rules to ensure the safety of Canadians. It is also within the power of government to make regulations which apply to railway companies and then to audit and monitor to see if those regulations are actually being followed. It resolves itself by actual leadership.

Canadians look to their government to intervene when their safety is in question. It is one of the fundamental responsibilities of government. Yet at a time when it is very clear that Transport Canada has a lot of catching up to do, when safety should be its top priority, its budget was slashed by over $200 million in the main estimates. That 11% cut follows on an already scathing Auditor General's report, which noted, among other things, that the government only performed 26% of its planned audits and did not audit VIA Rail at all, despite the fact that VIA Rail carries four million passengers each year. Can anyone imagine carrying out only one-quarter of the planned audits? Three-quarters of the job was not done and the safety of Canadians is at stake on this file.

The report also revealed that the government does not have enough inspectors and system auditors to carry out critical safety functions. There is a capacity problem inside the Department of Transport. With the current workforce, the department has conducted too few audits. Only one-quarter of the planned audits that Transport Canada said were necessary to keep rail safe in Canada were actually done. With those staffing levels, how many years will it take before the department audits all key components of safety? When the minister was asked about this by my colleague the member for Ottawa South in committee this month, the minister reported hiring only one additional inspector. How is that good management or good leadership? How does that protect Canadians' safety?

An initial Transportation Safety Board report on the three most recent derailments points to track faults and yet the government refuses to make the necessary investments in inspectors and other key safety professionals. It has not been able to demonstrate improvement in its oversight for air and marine and the recent spate of incidents in rail does not give us any confidence that it will be any different.

This is troubling for the residents of greater Toronto. Many trains carrying hazardous materials move through our communities using the CN or CP rail lines. While the government has made some improvements by phasing out railcars that were involved in Lac-Mégantic and requiring more communication from railways on the frequency and volume of dangerous goods passing through communities, much is left undone.

For instance, I agree with my colleague from Trinity—Spadina, who was a very strong advocate for greater rail safety at Toronto City Hall and continues that advocacy here, that railways should inform municipalities and first responders that dangerous goods are being transported through their communities before they pass through, rather than telling them afterwards, and sometimes months afterwards.

As a Mississauga city councillor, I made the same request almost six years ago after the Goreway Drive derailment. Furthermore, phasing out one rail car was important in the wake of Lac-Mégantic, but the derailments in Ontario this year demonstrate that even more should be done. In fact, I will quote from the Transportation Safety Board report that says:

If older tank cars, including the CPC-1232 cars, are not phased out sooner, then the regulator and industry need to take more steps to reduce the risk of derailments or consequences following a derailment carrying flammable liquids.

Transport Canada needs to immediately put more robust tank standards in place now, not in 2025, when the provisions announced around those cars would be enacted.

There are a number of elements of the bill that Canadians have been calling for, but it is clear from how long it has taken for the Conservative government to act on them that it still does not feel that railway safety is enough of a priority. There are still serious problems at Transport Canada. Without the inspectors, who are needed to audit train and rail safety, we will find ourselves perpetually back here wondering how another train derailment occurred.

The bill also rightly allows inspectors and the minister to order a company to immediately correct safety problems. Legislation is important, but money is needed. There is nothing about increasing capacity so that there are enough inspectors to audit these safety management systems, so how will the minister know about the safety problems? Strong language sounds good but does not help Canadians today—action-oriented words with very little action behind them. Three-quarters of audits are not happening. When will that change?

As I mentioned earlier today, this Conservative government spends more money each and every year that it has been in power on advertising, more than on rail safety. It is spending $42 million on ads announcing an income-splitting plan that does not help most Canadians, while only spending $38 million on rail safety just two years after the Lac-Mégantic disaster and subsequent derailments, and while presiding over a 1,500% increase in the transportation of oil by rail in the last three years.

Should this bill pass, I sincerely hope the government takes another look at re-prioritizing its resources. It is clear that it will have to make changes to rail security, but now it must do more than piecemeal updates to rules and regulations here and there, and it must put its money on the table and adequately fund the department and the staff who work every day to protect Canadians across the country from spills, derailments, and other potentially devastating disasters

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you know how generous I am. I had the chance to ask the member a question as though she were a Liberal or as though she were a Conservative. Being a generous person, I will ask her as though she were both at the same time.

I find it a little surprising that, as a Liberal, she has forgotten that it was the Liberal Party that reformed the rail transportation system, particularly with the privatization of CN. When CN was privatized, no regulatory obligations were imposed on it, and this has left us with a system that has massively deteriorated. CN says that it is not responsible. It is not contractually obligated to paint the Quebec Bridge or maintain tracks.

For their part, the Conservatives, who have increased deregulation, are not helping matters. There are more and more accidents. Thirty-five people died in Lac-Mégantic, and we must not wait for more deaths to occur. Unfortunately, from what all of the stakeholders—including the Transportation Safety Board, or TSB, and the Auditor General—have said, there will be more accidents.

We need to have another look at all of the policies, not only the Conservatives' policies, but also the Liberal policies before that.

[Eve Adams, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact it is incumbent on the Minister of Transport to set all safety regulations and standards relating to rail. It is then up to the department to check and audit to see whether or not the companies are actually adhering to that legislation or that set of regulations.

What is happening currently is that there have been far too few regulations and oversight when it comes to rail safety. More important, the budget at the department has been dramatically slashed. It is not able to keep up with any of the inspections and auditors. Three-quarters of its planned audits—not hypothetical work that staff had hoped one day to get to on a wish list or a bucket list, but the plant audits that they said needed to be done in the course of the year—were not undertaken and done. That imperils the safety of all Canadians.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I questioned the fire and rescue unit in Kingston, I found out that they have a list of the 25 top dangerous materials that could be passing through Kingston on freight trains and they practise dealing with those 25 types of dangerous cargo. What they do not have and what they wish they had is a faster way to access the dangerous cargo information on a particular train in case there is an incident.

I am wondering if my colleague could comment on that.

[Eve Adams, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was a municipal councillor, we put this request many times to the rail companies. There was a derailment on Goreway Drive and, while our first responders are always top notch, whether it is firefighters or police responding initially, they do need to have access to that type of information and it seems rather simple to provide. There ought to be some sort of mechanism by which this information could be accessed either online or on the actual trains.

However, this is something that could easily have been put in place by the government. It is something that community after community has been requesting, yet the bill, which does provide some incremental assistance to the issues at hand, certainly has done nothing on this issue.

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about our government's efforts to improve the safety of Canada's national railway system through the safe and accountable railway act, a bill to amend the Railway Safety Act. Today I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

I will begin by explaining to my hon. colleagues why these amendments are so important and why we should all support the bill. While Canada's railway system is one of the safest, we all recognize that, like other means of transportation, railways are not without risk. Rare devastating accidents like the tragic derailment that occurred at Lac-Mégantic give us pause and focus our attention on improving rail safety.

The amendments proposed in the bill build on the difficult lessons learned following Lac-Mégantic, address issues identified in the Auditor General's fall report of 2013, and also respond to issues raised in the Transportation Safety Board's final report on Lac-Mégantic.

My esteemed colleagues will remember that, in the immediate aftermath of Lac-Mégantic, our government quickly implemented a series of immediate and concrete actions to significantly improve the railway transport safety regime. We also made enhancing the regulatory framework a priority. Let me remind the House that the fundamental purpose of this already-robust regulatory framework is to protect people, property, and the environment from potential harm caused by railway operations.

The Railway Safety Act, which passed into law in 1988 and came into effect in January 1989, provided the legislative authority for the minister of transport to assume responsibility for the safety regulation of federally regulated railways in Canada. Following a mandatory review in 1994, the RSA was amended in 1999 to modernize the legislative and regulatory framework for railway safety. Included in the amendments were regulations for railway safety management systems, which formally integrate safety into the railway companies' day-to-day operations.

Following the tragic Lac-Mégantic derailment and to address recommendations in the Auditor General's fall 2013 report, the Minister of Transport committed to accelerating a regulatory development to enhance the framework and further strengthen oversight of federally regulated railways across Canada. As a result, the grade crossing regulations and the railway operating certificate regulations are now in force and the administrative monetary penalty regulations, new railway safety management systems regulations 2015, and amendments to the transportation information regulations will come into force on April 1, 2015.

Allow me to highlight why each of these regulations is equally important to enhancing the regulatory framework as well as strengthening oversight and enforcement of railway safety in Canada.

The first of the series of regulatory packages, the grade crossing regulations, came into effect on November 27, 2014, and improved safety by establishing comprehensive and enforceable safety standards for grade crossings, clarifying the roles and responsibilities of railway companies and road authorities, and ensuring the sharing of key safety information between railway companies and the road authority. I am certain members would agree that, whether we are pedestrians, drivers of cars, or passengers on a train, we all will benefit from safer grade crossings. These regulations do just that and will lead to reductions in collisions, fatalities, injuries, and property damage, as well as reducing the potential for environmental disasters resulting from a spill of dangerous goods.

The railway operating certificates for federally regulated railways came into force on January 1, 2015. These certificates, which will be issued to railways once they meet certain safety conditions, significantly strengthen Transport Canada's oversight capacity by giving the department the authority to stop a company from operating in the event of severe safety concerns.

New railway safety administrative monetary penalties regulations introduce a new tool to the rail safety program's enforcement regime that would be used to ensure compliance with the Railway Safety Act, as well as to put in place further regulations, rules, orders and emergency directives.

Amendments to the transportation information regulations would improve data reporting requirements to better identify and address safety risks before accidents happen. This would improve safety by supporting better planning and performance measurements, allowing for more focused audits and inspections, and targeted programs that address specific safety issues.

The new railway safety management systems regulations build on the progress and the lessons learned since the first regulations were introduced in 2001. As such, federally regulated railway companies and local companies operating on federal main track would have to appoint an executive to be accountable for SMS and responsible for the operations and activities of the company.

Railway companies must establish policies and procedures so that employees may report safety contraventions and hazards to the company without fear of reprisal. Railway companies must apply the principles of fatigue science to their employee scheduling processes.

All these regulations build upon the existing strong rail safety program and federal rail safety rules and regulations in place to ensure the safety and protection of the public. They provide Canadians with the safest railway system possible.

In addition to these regulations, in Bill C-52, the Minister of Transport has introduced amendments to the Railway Safety Act to further strengthen oversight of federally regulated railway companies and address issues raised by the Lac-Mégantic derailment and the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations, as well as the recommendations in the Auditor General of Canada's fall 2013 report. These amendments signify better safety for Canadians and Canadian communities, strengthened safety management systems, enhanced sharing of information, and a safer rail industry in a stronger national economy. These are priorities that we all share.

I encourage all members to support this bill. With the agreement of all members we can take a significant step forward to improve the safety of our railways for all Canadians and Canadian communities, and provide a stronger foundation for our national transport system and economy for years to come.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

However, he referred to documents from the Auditor General that we studied together and that were very critical of Transport Canada's inability to fulfill its mandates.

Furthermore, the TSB report, which deals with transportation accidents and did a very detailed analysis of the Lac-Mégantic incident, came down very hard on Transport Canada. Basically all of the stakeholders that studied and analyzed the problem have said that Transport Canada's philosophy of allowing companies to self-regulate is bad. It is not working. The companies are not doing what they should be doing.

Instead of simply amending the act, would it not be better to change the philosophy entirely and reconsider the sacrosanct but flawed principle of self-regulation?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do enjoy working with my colleague opposite on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We had the opportunity to review various reports through the course of the year provided by the Auditor General. Clearly this one report on railway safety was one of great concern to all of us. Certainly the issue of Lac-Mégantic was one that brought focus to our committee and functionally to all Canadians on the terrible tragedy that occurred in that environment.

When we studied the recommendations of the Auditor General's report, it is important to know first of all that Transport Canada, the minister and her officials accepted the recommendations of the Auditor General and moved very quickly to put many new safety regulations in place that would ensure that a situation such as the horror of Lac-Mégantic would not reoccur.

More importantly, I would like to point out to the member and I think he will agree with me, that the focus was taken off inspections. While inspectors are critical for day-to-day operations, there was a greater focus put on longer-term audit. Clearly, Transport Canada has increased the number of auditors within that organization by some 85% in very short order. The training is ongoing and is very substantial as they work to create a longer-term view of establishing safety operations within railways. The report that came out of that Auditor General's report by the committee truly acknowledged those changes.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is in two parts. My colleague spoke about safety management systems. What is important for the safety management systems is we want to set up something where we are not relying on the Transport Canada inspectors to find problems and tell the rail companies. We want to push the rail companies to set up a culture, procedures and systems so that safety is taken care of without the inspector having to intervene, or at least minimizing the times when inspectors have to intervene.

Many freight lines pass in and out of Canada along the border with the United States. What can the federal government do to encourage a safety culture in those cases where rail lines pass across the border?

[John Carmichael, Conservative, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us face it, the bottom line on what we are debating today is installing a new set of standards and requirements for safety in this country that we have never seen before. It is a higher, more aggressive standard and one which puts tremendous accountability back on the railway companies.

Certainly the insurance provisions that are within the new bill force the railway operators to do a better job at managing their operations and ensure that they have the appropriate levels of insurance in the event of a significant occurrence, a catastrophic occurrence such as we have been talking about. More importantly, when we talk about safety standards, the number of inspectors and auditors, it is one thing to push the responsibility to the company, and we have to do that and certainly that is inherent in everything we do in the operation of the company, but we have taken responsibility through the auditing and inspection procedures to ensure that these processes are maintained.

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today to the Safe and Accountable Rail Act, or the Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the changes we are proposing to provide greater oversight of federally regulated railway companies.

We are indeed proposing to further strengthen oversight of federally regulated rail companies. The safe and accountable rail act is progressive and forward-looking. The amendments to the Railway Safety Act would mean better safety for Canadians and Canadian communities, strengthened safety management systems, enhanced sharing of information and a safer rail industry in a stronger national economy.

All of these are priorities of the government, and I believe should be priorities of each and every member of this House of Commons. There is nothing more important than the safety and prosperity of Canadians. That is why my private member's bill is the complementary Bill C-627, which was inspired by my constituents of Winnipeg South Centre.

The Railway Safety Act provides the Minister of Transport with the authority to oversee the safety of federally regulated railways. Transport Canada's role is to monitor for threats to safe railway operations, as well as compliance to the Railway Safety Act and its rules, regulations and engineering standards through audits and inspections.

The amendments to the Railway Safety Act would further strengthen oversight and address issues raised by the Lac-Mégantic derailment, and the Transportation Safety Board's recommendations, as well as the recommendations in the Auditor General of Canada's fall 2013 report.

By proposing these amendments, the federal government is reiterating its commitment to a safe and secure national railway system, and to the safety of communities right across this country. The government is focusing on four key areas that will have the most direct and positive impact: meeting the needs of communities; ensuring the people or companies responsible are accountable; strengthening safety management systems; and increasing authorities for our railway safety inspectors.

Collaboration between railways and communities is crucial to ensure the safety of Canadian citizens across our vast country. The Government of Canada is committed to enhancing confidence in railway safety, greater sharing of information and co-operation between railway companies and communities.

This is precisely why we are proposing new regulation-making powers, requiring companies to share information with municipalities. This would help address community railway safety concerns, and I know these changes, along with my private member's Bill C-627, would be extremely well received in my home riding of Winnipeg South Centre.

Too often it is the provinces and municipalities, also known as the taxpayers, that are left to pick up the pieces and pay the bills after a railway incident, especially one that requires the assistance of first responders for issues such as fire.

The Safe and Accountable Rail Act also proposes changes to allow a province or municipality that incurs costs in responding to a fire that would appear to be the result of a railway company’s railway operations to apply to the Canada Transportation Agency to have those costs reimbursed. These changes would give the Canada Transportation Agency the power to determine whether the fire was indeed the result of the railway operations of the railway company in question, and, if so, the Agency would have the authority to order the railway company to reimburse the province or municipality, thereby avoiding downloading the costs on to municipal taxpayers.

Under the auspices of the Railway Safety Act, Transport Canada is responsible for oversight, which includes monitoring for threats to rail safety operations, as well as compliance with the Railway Safety Act and its rules, regulations and engineering standards through audits and inspections. The proposed amendments in this bill include broadening authorities to allow inspectors to issue notices in the event of a threat to safety to any person or entity that has responsibility in relation to that threat, including companies, road authorities and municipalities.

Furthermore, in the event of an immediate threat, an inspector may issue a notice and order to any person or entity, again including companies but now also including road authorities and municipalities, and order them to take specific corrective actions to remove the immediate threat. These broadened authorities complement a broader new authority for the Minister of Transport.

Currently, the Railway Safety Act allows the minister to order only railways to take corrective action in cases of immediate threats to safety. The amendments propose adding an additional power to allow the minister to order a railway company, road authority or municipality to take corrective action following specific procedures or to stop any activity in the interest of rail safety operations.

These amendments are about oversight and advancing railway safety oversight and enforcement, together with furthering safety management system implementation by clarifying and broadening the authority and responsibilities of the minister and railway safety inspectors.

What is more, this act would fully align and complement my own private member's bill, Bill C-627, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act, which aims to provide greater protection to persons and property from risks inherent to railway operations. I introduced that bill on September 23, 2014, and I understand it is in committee as we speak. Furthermore, both bills align with the objectives of the Railway Safety Act to further strengthen railway safety in Canada.

The safe and accountable rail act and Bill C-627 are both about safety, they are both about protecting people, they are both about protecting communities.

It is hard to argue with these changes. The railway is an integral part of Canada's current infrastructure and will continue to be in the future. The railway has to be sound, reliable and safe.

This government believes these amendments to the Railway Safety Act are essential. They would modernize the Railway Safety Act to reflect the requirements of a growing and increasingly complex rail industry. I believe the important safety amendments contained in the bill are ones that we can all agree on, both quickly and unanimously.

This bill is a step forward. It is a step forward for Canadians and a step forward for rail safety. With the agreement of each and every member of the House, we can take these steps together toward a safer, more reliable and economically viable freight and passenger railway system for all Canadians.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to imagine anything more important than the safety and well-being of our fellow citizens. That is obviously the bill's focus as well. It is unfortunate that we have come to this point because the Lac-Mégantic disaster would probably never have happened had this measure been in place.

Mayors in my riding told me that it imperative to know what is being transported through their region and when. Does my honourable colleague agree that this is absolutely fundamental? Does she believe that this bill does enough to inform municipalities of the dangerous goods transported by VIA Rail in their areas?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for this question.

As everyone knows, transportation safety in general, and the safety of railway transportation in particular, is one of our government's priorities.

As I mentioned, it is always about co-operation. We must strike a balance between the needs of commercial enterprises and the safety needs of Canadians. That is what our bill does and the reason why I hope that my colleague opposite will support it.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after years of federal government cuts, Transport Canada has lost experienced staff and some of its institutional memory.

This is the question I would like to ask. How can we restore the institutional memory and the experienced staff after years of cuts?

[Joyce Bateman, Conservative, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as a former public servant, I have so much respect for all of the public servants employed by the federal government and other levels of government.

My perspective differs dramatically from that of my colleague across the way because I believe that, with the right tools, our public servants will be able to make very effective use of the bill we have introduced.

Our bill fills a legislative gap, and I hope that the Liberal Party member will be able to place more trust in our public servants.

[The Acting Speaker, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, Official Languages.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

I am very pleased to speak to the issue of rail safety. It is a very important issue for my riding, which I will explain shortly.

We are debating second reading of Bill C-52, which would amend the Canada Transportation Act and Railway Safety Act. This is something that is closely watched by people in my community, in my riding of Parkdale—High Park.

The bill would require minimum insurance levels for railways transporting dangerous goods, based on the type and volume of goods being transported. It would establish a disaster relief fund to compensate victims of derailment paid for by levies on railway companies that are transporting crude oil. This would be on top of the minimum insurance levels. It would also implement other changes to increase the powers of inspectors.

In general, we support the bill. We think it is important to take immediate action and any improvement is certainly positive. We need to improve the liability and accountability regime for Canada's railways and we need to ensure that the government enforces the legislation, that the regulations are enforced and that the inspectors and auditors have the resources required for this effective oversight. We believe the bill should have gone much further, but I will come back to that in a couple of minutes.

What got everyone's attention in the country on the issue of rail safety was the terrible, tragic rail disaster in Lac-Mégantic in 2013. It is a situation we know well, where a freight train loaded with Bakken crude oil travelled down a hill unattended. It derailed and on impact exploded, caught fire and killed 47 people. The town centre was destroyed. Eight hundred people were evacuated. The land was contaminated. It was a traumatic situation not only for the people who were horribly affected by the devastation but for our entire country.

The subsequent reports made a number of findings and recommendations. They found that back in the 1990s, with the Liberal governments and continuing with subsequent Conservative governments, deregulation of the railway sector and a transferring of responsibility for safety from the government to the railway companies began. In this case, they found a series of problems with the company that was responsible in Lac-Mégantic, such as a very weak culture of safety, mechanical problems and a lack of staffing. With Transport Canada, they found inadequate oversight and inspection. What was highlighted was the weakness of the tank cars.

It is fair to say that people assumed the government was looking out for them and taking care of their safety, that this was surely one of the basic responsibilities of government, to ensure that public safety was respected.

I want to read into the record in the House an email I received from a constituent because this got the attention of people in our riding of Parkdale—High Park. One neighbourhood in our riding is called The Junction. The Junction is the crossing of the CN and CP lines. As one can imagine, there is quite a bit of rail traffic going through our neighbourhood. This was historically an industrial neighbourhood, which over the years has seen a greater number of people with their homes right by the tracks.

I want to read from a constituent's letter: “My partner and I currently own and live on...a street beside the tracks. Our property backs onto the rail yard. Our bedroom is less than 40 feet from the rails that transport tons and tons of goods, many of which are unknown to us. We see black oil tankers go by multiple times a day, cars with perforated holes in them. Since the Lac-Mégantic catastrophe as well as others across the country—they seem to be happening more and more frequently—we are deeply concerned for our safety as well as the safety of our neighbours and friends. Because of our home's proximity to the rail lines, if anything were ever to happen on the rail lines behind us, a derailment or an explosion, we would most likely lose our home and potentially our lives. The number of lives that could be at risk if such an accident occurred here is absolutely staggering.”

This is a concern that is very real in our neighbourhood. It goes well beyond the issue about liability, while liability is a key factor because we saw in Lac-Mégantic there was clearly a lack of responsibility and a lack of liability on the part of the shipper.

We have a number of questions from members of our community who have organized into an organization called Safe Rail Communities. They want to know why, while the technology to stabilize light crude oil by extraction of volatile gases exists and is mandated in the state of Texas, it is not required to be stabilized before it is transported by rail. Most of this is required to be stabilized before it is transported by pipeline. People want the substances that are being transported made as safe as possible.

They also want to know why Canadians must wait until 2025 for the new TC-117 tank cars, the safer tank cars. Why do people have to continue to see the DOT-111s or even the newer cars that crashed in northern Ontario roll past their bedroom windows when there are safer alternatives? Why do we have to wait 10 years for safer tank cars to roll on the Canadian lines? Why can people not know what is being transported through their communities? Why do people not have a right to know the hazards that are rolling right past their bedroom windows? These are fundamental questions that need to be answered.

They also want to know, when a catastrophic accident from a flammable train in a densely populated area could have costs going up to $6 billion, why the strictest requirement is only $1 billion. In fact, we have written to CN and it has told us that it already has more than $1 billion in liability insurance, so this would put no new higher standard on it. Why do we not require shippers and those responsible for the products that are being shipped to have insurance that would cover the complete liability? Why would we allow any exposure to liability in our communities?

When we think of the potential tragedy of a major rail accident in our largest city, the city of Toronto, where hundreds of these tank cars carrying Bakken oil or dilbit are transferred every day, surely we need to prevent as much as possible any potential accident from happening. People want to know that what is being shipped is as safe as possible, that it is being shipped at as slow speeds as possible, that wherever possible it is rerouted from their area to the less-populated neighbourhoods, but then should there be any tragedy that the community would not have to once again pick up the tab.

Protecting the public is a core responsibility of the government. New Democrats believe we need to do everything in our power to ensure that tragedies such as that which occurred in Lac-Mégantic never happen again. Fixing liability is just the beginning. We need stronger laws, stronger enforcement, penalties for those who break the laws, and much more serious oversight, inspections and audits by the government.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her presentation. She raised some very important points.

I would like to comment on the DOT-111 standards. We now have the new CPC-1232 standard. As the member pointed out, there have already been two derailments in northern Ontario. Since last year's announcement, there have also been three derailments in the United States with the new CPC-1232 standard. I think that people are right to worry.

Does this bill do anything at all to protect the public when it comes to the quality of the tank cars that pass by their homes? Can this bill offer any hope of a standard that will actually work?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

Our constituents are asking why we have had to wait 10 years for tougher, better-protected tank cars. The federal government announced that better tank cars that are CPC-1232 compliant are being phased in, but we have already seen that they are not tough enough. These are the tank cars that broke in the accidents in northern Ontario. People who live near railways are concerned about the fact that the standards are not high enough. The government must do much more to protect the public.

[Pierre Dionne Labelle, NDP, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a similar question regarding the speed of trains and the loads on the tracks. I have seen a convoy of these infamous oil tankers pass by at what seemed to be a fairly high speed. I am new to this file, but does the government have anything planned to make sure that these convoys go slower in urban areas? Obviously, if a train is moving at 15 km per hour then the risk that it will explode and catch on fire is much lower than if it is moving at 80 km or 100 km per hour. I would like to hear what the member has to say about that.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question.

Indeed, if the trains are moving more slowly, there is less of a risk. The government is telling us that trains will go slower in downtown areas. However, people who live near the railway tracks say that the trains move quite rapidly, especially at night. We are very concerned about the fact that there is a much greater risk of an accident—a serious accident—when trains are travelling at high speeds, especially in big cities.

If these trains have to continue to pass through our cities across the country, we need to make sure that they slow down in order to keep people as safe as possible.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents in Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert to speak to the very important topic of rail safety. Since the tragedy in Lac-Mégantic in July 2013, my constituents have been very concerned about the safety of our rail system, especially since they live close to railways.

On average, seven freight trains pass through Saint-Hubert every day, while about a dozen pass through Saint-Bruno. The government's bill is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, I share my constituents' serious concerns about the methods used to ensure that rail companies comply with the new rules. I do not think we are doing enough, and I think that many more improvements are necessary. Indeed, it is laudable that we are creating a fund and increasing insurance coverage to compensate the communities and citizens affected by an accident, but I think that the amount of this fund is far too low, in light of the potential damage to the environment, our property and even the health of Canadians.

I would remind hon. members that decontaminating the area affected by the Lac-Mégantic derailment will cost more than $400 million. MMA had only $25 million in liability insurance. As hon. members can see, the gap between the amount of coverage and the repair cost is huge.

The Conservative government's bill would impose a framework, requiring railway companies to increase their liability insurance and imposing a minimum amount on them.

However, if we look at the bill in detail, we see that, once again, the Conservative government is presenting half measures. The levels of insurance set out in the bill are insufficient. The levels of insurance should be based on the public risk of transporting these products and not just on the type and volume of goods being transported. The damage caused in Lac-Mégantic is estimated at over $400 million, but the new rules do not seem to bring the smaller companies to that level.

The Lac-Mégantic incident involved a small railway 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.

It is estimated that the transportation of crude oil by rail will continue to grow significantly. It already increased by 320 times between 2009 and 2013. With this increase comes an increased risk of accidents. More than ever, we must improve oversight of infrastructure and hold railway companies accountable by imposing sanctions.

This is the second time I have spoken to a rail safety bill since the session resumed at the end of January. This is the second time that we have been faced with a highly publicized, but badly botched bill.

I would also like the government to explain how it is going to implement the measures it is proposing when it does not have the resources to do so. The number of inspectors is nowhere near enough. Transport Canada hired just one additional railway safety inspector.

The number of inspectors went from 116 in 2013 to 117 in 2015. However, they have to be able to do their work properly. The rail safety budget was cut by $5 million in 2012 and last year.

How can the Conservative government reassure Canadians that safety is a priority when transportation budgets are being cut?

As I mentioned earlier, many improvements can still be made and a number of possible solutions have been proposed by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, which I want to acknowledge for its valuable work over the past 25 years. I would like to remind members that the TSB proposals have been circulating for many years. However, none were implemented by previous governments.

It took a human tragedy for the TSB measures to finally be heard and implemented. I am thinking mainly of the retirement of the DOT-111 cars, about which I wrote to the Minister of Transport several times. The truth is that the Conservative government is feeling the impact of the rail deregulation that it voted in, and today it is trying to fix past mistakes.

The NDP cares about the safety of our communities and our citizens. When we form the government, we will ensure that the Lac-Mégantic disaster remains the exception.

[Matthew Dubé, NDP, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and neighbour, who often speaks about Saint-Bruno, the town where I was born and raised. It could be called a rail community.

However, I have a concern and it is the same situation for her and me and for all of our colleagues who have railways tracks in their ridings. When we say that the bill does not go far enough, one of the concerns that comes up fairly often is about prevention. When the government talks about the amounts the companies will have to pay, it is going on the assumption that an incident will occur. The municipalities want tools to prevent such incidents.

I am thinking of the firefighters and all of the people on the front lines who work to save lives when such tragedies occur. For example, there was the train disaster in Mont-Saint-Hilaire in 1990, which could have rivalled the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. Fortunately, the train derailed outside the city's residential and commercial area.

Does my colleague agree that the municipalities need information about the dangerous goods that are passing through them and that we do not want any more disasters so it is not enough for the government to say that the companies will clean up the mess afterward?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and neighbour, the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas. Like me, he is very familiar with the region and the concerns of my constituents.

Obviously, since the Lac-Mégantic tragedy, I have had the opportunity to hold public consultations with my constituents in Saint-Bruno and Saint-Hubert.

As I said in my speech, people and even the municipalities are very concerned. I also had the opportunity to sit on a committee that deals with the prevention of hazardous spills. It is true that the municipalities are very concerned about the fact that they do not know what the rail cars that are passing through such highly populated areas are carrying. People would at least like the municipalities to be informed in advance rather than a year after the fact.

I would like to thank my colleague once again for his relevant question and I hope that the government will give us some answers.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation. Her riding is a major rail transportation centre in eastern Canada, so we would do well to listen to what she has to say.

Recently, people in the House have raised concerns about the speed of trains in urban and rural areas. I would like to remind everyone that the tank cars involved in the most recent derailments, which took place in northern Ontario and the United States, were travelling at just 24 miles per hour. That did not prevent major oil spills from happening. That is very worrisome.

When it takes six days to put out a fire in a remote part of northern Ontario and we are presented with new criteria allowing municipalities to report safety problems, that is obviously worrisome.

I would like my colleague to comment on derailments in urban areas. Are the new standards reassuring? Does this bill go far enough?

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. As I said in my speech, we also have to look at aging infrastructure and companies' responsibility when it comes to train speed.

Unfortunately, train speed is not mentioned anywhere in this bill. All it covers is money for compensation, and when we delve into the details, there is nothing there. The work is half done. It is time to implement the polluter pays principle. When we become the government, we will do a thorough job and talk about all of the factors so that we can prevent instead of cure.

In answer to my colleague, I met with people from CN, and they assured me that the DOT-111 tank cars would be outfitted with bars to make them safe. Unfortunately, the tragedy that happened in Toronto proved that they were not safe.

I hope that work on this will go on.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and pleasure to speak today to Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act. In response to the previous question, we on this side agree that this is part of a three-part analysis or attempt to make rail traffic as safe as possible in this country. One pillar, which the parliamentary secretary talked about in his speech earlier today, is prevention. In the second pillar, we need to be ready for response in case there is an emergency. What we are dealing with in Bill C-52 is the part about accountability, making federally regulated rail companies accountable for what they are doing.

In the next few minutes I want to talk about some of the questions that have been asked of the government and of this legislation before it goes to committee so that more discussion can happen, and I know my opposition friends are eager to have witnesses at committee to discuss the bill in more detail.

Why is the government changing the liability and compensation regime for rail? I think it is relatively obvious to all of us in the House, and it was mentioned by every member who has spoken to it today, that the issue of having the government responsible for the safety of Canadians is a number one priority for our government, and it should be. Unfortunately, we have had some very tragic incidents in terms of rail safety issues in this country, such as Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, with the terrible tragedy that happened there in July 2013. I am from Burlington, Ontario, where we have had rail derailments. Unfortunately, the most recent one was a passenger rail issue and people died from that derailment also. However, this discussion is really about product that travels by rail, not people, so this is important to the people of Burlington to have the opportunity to make sure that there is accountability with rail lines and what they are shipping through our neighbourhoods across the country.

When would this new change come into effect? This is basically about changes to the insurance requirements of rail companies, and we are giving them about a year from when it comes into force to get ready for that, which means they will have to make sure their insurance coverage, the accountability aspects, are in place prior to one year from when the bill gets royal assent.

Did we consult stakeholders? Of course we consulted stakeholders. That is important because, whether it was municipalities or railway lines or others affected, there were a couple of rounds of stakeholder outreach in terms of getting feedback on what can be done as the accountability piece. I believe we received feedback from approximately 27 stakeholders on this, from railways, shippers, and local municipalities.

This is important because the issue of rail travel for products and goods is important. Let us face it: it was important in bringing Canada together as a country, and we need to make sure everyone is involved in that discussion of where we are headed in terms of accountability, of being proactive and prepared to respond, and of prevention. That is why the stakeholders played a big role in coming up with what is in the bill.

I think it would be naive to say that everyone agreed on exactly what to do and at what level, but that is why we have consultations. We think that the polluter pay principle should be put forward as the number one tenet of the accountability portion of this.

What does polluter pay mean for rail? It is an important principle that those who cause the damage as a result of their operations would pay for the damage. It is important that it is the company and, in this case, we are adding a fund from shippers. They need to take significant responsibility in terms of the levels of insurance coverage they need. It should not be the taxpayer. That is what the polluter pay principle is, that it is not the general taxpayers' responsibility. It is the government's responsibility to develop the safety standards, to make sure the rail system is safe, but if something does go wrong, it is not the taxpayers' responsibility to cover those costs but the polluter.

These measures of liability should not be new to companies. No company should say it is not its responsibility, it should be the taxpayers' responsibility. At the end of the day, based on the consultations with stakeholders, including the rail companies, we came to an agreement, which we see in Bill C-52, to deal with this.

Let me go over the proposed amendments. They would make all railways hold a minimum level of insurance, which we have heard many times today, based on the risk posed by the type and volume of dangerous goods being moved. It makes sense that if a company is moving non-dangerous goods, its liability should be less, but a company moving dangerous goods, including oil products and others that can cause significant damage, has to have higher liability. It has to have more insurance to cover the costs because if there is an accident, the damage that is done is much more significant with dangerous goods. We came up with a proposal that railways would have to carry higher amounts of insurance for dangerous goods. It is common sense and something that both the public and the railways clearly understand is the railways' responsibility.

There would be an initial requirement for them to hold either $50 million or $125 million in insurance, depending on the type and volume of the dangerous good being carried. That is an initial requirement. Then one year after that, those requirements would double to $100 million and $250 million, respectively. These are the carrying costs that would have to be built into the operational aspects of running a railway. It is important for the railways to have the coverage so that taxpayers would not be on the hook for the cleanup of any damage done from any unfortunate accident. When I say “damage”, it can obviously be both physical damage, property damage, damage to the environment, and, of course, to human life. There have been tragedies in this country where that has happened. We need to make sure that taxpayers are not going to be responsible for that, but the actual railway shipping the goods is responsible.

Another question was with regard to what we think the financial impact would be, particularly on short-line railways. People tend to think about CP and CN, the big railways in Canada, but we would also require the short-line railways to carry the same requirement. It would be part of railways doing business in this country. It would be part of the decision to carry goods and it would be included in this new regime. This would increase their operating costs, there is no doubt about it, but it is much-needed protection for taxpayers as we continue to implement the polluter pay principle, including short-line railways.

Is there insurance available at this level? We are assured that there is. We have had a number of insurance brokers say that it is possible for them to provide that level of insurance and are willing to take the risk. Therefore, they cannot use as an excuse that they cannot get the insurance, which was an issue we needed to resolve to make sure it was available.

I will conclude by saying we have had some tragic rail accidents in my own riding of Burlington in the last number of years. We have also seen across the country other very significant accidents in the railway system, mainly dealing with the shipping of dangerous product. We need to have assurance that the polluter needs to pay and we need to protect the taxpayers, and this is what Bill C-52 would do.

I look forward to the bill going to committee for discussion and back to this House quickly so that we can pass it and make it law, because it would not take effect until a year after it has royal assent. Therefore, we need to get royal assent as soon as possible.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

I see the hon. government House leader rising on a point of order.