The committee would appreciate that information. Thank you.
I want to hopefully bring some clarity here. There has a been a conflation of several issues. I know there has been a lot of comment on the world tanker safety panel report, for example. Our response, with respect to oil, is a separate issue from what we're dealing with here today. We're dealing with C-3 and plugging a gap that exists currently with respect to HNS, hazardous and noxious substances.
I think, Madam Legars, your testimony, even though we don't have the exact numbers, points to the reality that we do need a regime, both for shipowners and shippers, that carries a higher liability. We may find out, yet again, that as a result of the world tanker safety panel report we may be revisiting the level of this, for example, as well. For now, we need to have a regime in place, and that's what the legislation gets to today, making sure that we have a start on that.
Maybe this is for the port to answer. This brings into the liability regime the requirements for oil handling facilities. First of all, we heard by testimony that we don't exactly know how many there are. There is an estimate of about 400. This will now make reporting requirements that be known to the regulator, that being Transport Canada.
What is the risk of an incident at a loading facility between a tanker and the oil handling facility? Is there a high degree or high likeliness of an incident occurring where there is a spill? What is the liability regime currently for a situation like that, where it occurs at the facility?