Transport Committee on April 28th, 2015

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Who funds it?

[Paul Boissonneault]

I'd have to get that information specifically on how it's funded. I believe it's through the Canadian Transportation Agency.

That would probably be a better question for government.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm trying to get a sense about their resources because you've raised a whole series of important questions about resourcing through your brief. I want to go to that for a second, if I could.

I want to set this in context. It's an undeniable fact that the government just cut the budget of Transport Canada by 11%. We've lost $202 million at Transport Canada going forward. That's 11% of the entire department's budget.

Now, we know that this is five months before an election, so we know what really is going on here. It's the shell game around deficit elimination and grabbing money wherever they can to be able to message that out to Canadians. But these are the real front-line effects of the kinds of cuts we're seeing.

I want to raise a second point that you raised, which is on the question of inspectors and inspections. You made the very important point that giving authority to inspectors and others to immediately correct safety problems is one thing; it's an entirely different thing if there are not enough inspectors to perform the safety audits under the safety management systems.

Why don't you expand on that for Canadians, in the context of an 11% reduction in spending at Transport Canada?

[Paul Boissonneault]

I think it would be very challenging for me to comment on an 11% reduction without knowing specifically which areas those would be. That would be a question probably better suited for government.

With regard to CANUTEC, that is a vital resource. I use the analogy that when an incident occurs, essentially that is a first responder's call for help, just like when somebody has an emergency they call 911 to make sure the right people get there with the right resources, on time, to make their day a little bit better. The emergency responder community is just the same.

CANUTEC serves as a vital resource in the event of an emergency, especially something on as large a scale as a train derailment. We can understand, through chemist expertise as well as regulatory information, how we should best deal with these emergencies, and set the stage for the property resource allocations as they start becoming available to us.

Specific to the inspectors, I guess I would use the analogy that in my own fire department we have a fire prevention week once a year. If that were the only week in which we did fire prevention activities, we would probably have a very ineffective program. We have a management program for our fire prevention that is year-round.

My comment specific to the inspectors is to ensure that you can have the proper preparation in a planning stage. The right amount of inspectors and the right level of enforcement have to exist. What that number specifically is, and how that's defined, would be certainly set forward by—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I appreciate that.

The reason we're having to ask you, chief, in your capacity here today is that last week we asked the minister four times and she wouldn't answer. She won't tell Canadians what's going on with the cuts in her own department. She's hiding them. So we're having to turn to other folks on the front lines, such as you, who are having to perform really difficult tasks.

In fact, your brief is full of asks for money, for support, and for training. It looks as though you're cobbling onto a quickly pulled-together bill by the government, trying to find resourcing that you need to do your job and that your teams need to do their jobs around the country. It's unfortunate, because when a department is cut by 11%, that's what good folks like you are compelled to do. You have to come here and beg Conservative MPs and the majority of this committee to cobble together some kind of funding mechanism so that you can do your jobs with safety.

I want to turn, if I could, to the second them and ask all three of you very quickly, do any of you, including Mr. McMillan, know the final numbers so far for the cost at Lac-Mégantic?

I'll start with you, chief.

[Paul Boissonneault]

I don't have the exact numbers. The only information I was provided is that thus far it has exceeded $250 million, to date.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

FCM.

[Daniel Rubinstein]

We don't have the exact number, but it's well in excess of half a billion.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Well in excess of half a billion?

[Daniel Rubinstein]

I believe it's over half a billion, but I don't have the exact number.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Mr. McMillan, are you tracking that, in your capacity as president of CAPP?

[Tim McMillan]

No. We don't have the exact numbers.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Okay.

If it's over half a billion, somewhere between $250 million and half a billion, and CAPP doesn't have the numbers, Mr. McMillan, why is $250 million the right amount of money or the wrong amount of money?

[Tim McMillan]

In this bill it prescribes two things. It prescribes the insurance requirements for railways—

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I know what it prescribes, Mr. McMillan. I just need to hear from you, is $250 million the right number or the wrong number?

[Tim McMillan]

We think that $250 million is the right number, when you take into account that the prescribed insurance will be a billion dollars and the $250 million is a top-up above that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Even though the cost of Lac-Mégantic could be, for example, as high as a billion dollars by the time all the environmental and river clean-up is done?

[Tim McMillan]

Yes. In this bill it prescribes the insurance requirements for the large railway, for the small railway, and this here is a top-up above that.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Great.

Mr. McMillan, your brief raises a whole series of really important issues that were not addressed in this bill. You have some really profound concerns, things like “it is not clear how this liability would arise”, under your point 31; and “it is not clear from this how more than one railway would become liable”. And you say this “would not be our understanding of how the new regime is to work”.

You go on to make a whole series of tough points about this bill. Let me ask you, were you consulted about this?

[Tim McMillan]

Yes. We put in a presentation on this. We would like to see more clarity about how the liability for two parties would be treated.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Larry Miller]

Thank you.

Mr. Watson, seven minutes.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, of course, to our witnesses for appearing here today.

Let me start with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

On the number of carloads of oil by rail, our committee came to an estimate that it was 110,000 carloads in 2014, based on your statistics of 181,000 barrels a day in 2014, at some 600 barrels a tank car, or somewhere in that range. We look forward to whether you can confirm that.

When will you know what the first quarter will look like for 2015 and how that will compare with 2014 or 2013 in terms of oil by rail? When will you know first quarter stats? Our committee would have an interest in having the info.

[Tim McMillan]

I can confirm with you—we did the rough math, as well, to the question earlier—that it is about 400 to 450 carloads a day of crude oil leaving our producers.

As far as the statistics—

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

For 2015 first quarter?