Transport Committee on April 28th, 2015

[Tim McMillan]

No, of 200,000 barrels a day, which is what we're currently sending out on rail on average, that works out to about 400 to 450 carloads.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

When you say 200,000 barrels a day, that's a 2015 number.

[Tim McMillan]

For specifics on carloads, the railroads would be tracking those numbers. They would have access to the exact....

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Your brief argues that rail only should have liability. That is the principal position of CAPP, that shippers should have no liability relative to any other compensation costs, any cleanup costs, or anything like that in the event of an accident involving a railway company. Is that your principal position?

[Tim McMillan]

We believe in the principle put forward in this bill, which is consistent with pipelines, that the shipper takes responsibility for the carrying of the product, and that aligns the responsibility with those who are most able to make the safety changes required to have an excellent system here in Canada.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

We just heard the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, which took the position that the qualities of the product itself pose considerable risks. You don't think that those who are asking the railway companies to move oil by rail should bear any liability then?

[Tim McMillan]

We believe that the railroads carry many products that would fall in the flammable or in the dangerous goods category. Oil by rail is one of them. There are many specs of oil that are being carried, so again we think that when the railways are carrying multiple different products, they are best positioned to take responsibility for those actions.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

I appreciate that. I am not sure many stakeholders, let alone the government, would agree with that position, which is why we have the bill in front of us today.

Mr. Boissonneault, you've raised a number of items in your presentation today. On the aspect of a training fund levy or set-aside, with respect to the levy that is considered in Bill C-52, are you asking the committee to establish that?

[Paul Boissonneault]

Through the emergency task force, as well as through consultation with various stakeholders, we are trying to find an appropriate mechanism to define where the standardized training should live and breathe. That is probably the biggest challenge that we are facing, without knowing the specific legalities of whether it is the role of government in putting in place a measure, or whether it is simply something that has to be worked out through industry stakeholders, together with our association, to find where this training money should live and breathe.

What I am presenting today is information for the committee that we have tried to look at mechanisms toward a stipend that would support a training fund that could be rolled out across Canada nationally to at least an awareness level, which would give basic information for all the firefighters across Canada. Where it can live and breathe is the biggest challenge to that.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

You'll have to forgive me. I almost thought I was questioning a government official on that one. I need a clearer answer. We'll have to consider this bill at clause-by-clause. Are you asking the committee to amend this bill to create some sort of a levy?

[Paul Boissonneault]

If that is the appropriate mechanism where it can be, then yes, I am asking the committee to look at that because what we have discussed and/or presented to government for a training fund in the past was deemed to be not the acceptable means, so we are trying to find a means. At the end of the day, the public safety issue, as well as the firefighters' safety, is our biggest [Inaudible—Editor] concern.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

The stakeholders haven't agreed on what is a policy question for governments to decide, but you are asking the committee to prejudge when the stakeholders have no agreement on how much, how it would be dispersed, and how it would function. Okay, we'll take that as advice then, and probably advice to the government.

On the $250 million limit, the minister was clear that it is not a limit; it is a $250 million target that would be backstopped by a loan from the consolidated revenue fund, repayable by the reinstitution of the levy on those who own the commodity. Are you suggesting that this is not sufficient for covering any scenario with respect to an accident, or are you suggesting that we should...? I don't know what you are suggesting. Is that mechanism not sufficient in any scenario, including what happened in Lac-Mégantic?

[Paul Boissonneault]

Specifically in regard to what has been reported about Lac-Mégantic and the allocation of costs associated with that event, I would say that certainly when we talk about the seven situations of the releases from the derailments that took place in 2013, they certainly didn't reach that $250 million limit, and that many of these would likely be under that value.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

In fairness, you're speaking as if $250 million is a cap, and it's not a cap.

[Paul Boissonneault]

Right.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Okay, but the mechanism that's in place, or that the bill itself puts in place, doesn't envision that as a cap of any sort. While the target for initial capitalization of the fund itself is $250 million, there isn't a scenario where the fund wouldn't pay a cost that would exceed that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

I'm going to have to cut you there, Mr. Watson.

Just before we go on, regarding Mr. Watson's first question, I want to clarify that with Mr. McMillan.

You said that the 200,000 barrels a day equated to 450 cars, if I remember right. Is that a 2015 figure?

[Tim McMillan]

No, that would be 2014, but we would be seeing incremental growth from there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Okay, thank you.

[Tim McMillan]

It wouldn't be a big jump.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you very much.

Mr. McColeman, welcome to the meeting. It's good to have you here.

Mr. Braid, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our representatives and witnesses for being here this afternoon.

Ms. Saskiw, thank you for being here all the way from Alberta. Madam Mayor, thank you for all the work you've done on the various working groups and advisory committees. That's very helpful.

In your opening comments you indicated that you thought the new liability insurance level requirements contained in the bill, as well as the new compensation fund, are “an important step forward.”

Could you just elaborate on your thoughts with respect to that?

[Jenelle Saskiw]

Like I said, this is a starting point for our work here for the legislation. We still have a lot of regulatory requirements that we have to work out, so this is a step forward. This is an ongoing issue that we have to deal with, understanding that a one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work in Canada. We're dealing with many factors so we have to take into consideration absolutely everything.

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

Specifically with respect to the liability insurance levels and the special compensation fund, why are those so important for your municipality or any other one across the country?

[Jenelle Saskiw]

Again, we have to consider other products as well. We don't want it limited to the shipment of crude oil. Like I said, there are other factors that we have to consider and just move forward with that.