Evidence of meeting #54 for Transport, Infrastructure and Communities in the 41st Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
I can't speak for the policy, but the intent was to allow damage suffered by parties to be compensated first.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
You say it's the same regime as the minimum coverage for insurance. For non-use value, the environment will always come after damages or loss that can—
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
Indeed. If we assume a billion dollar insurance coverage, and if within the billion dollars there's not enough, damage suffered by private parties or cleanup costs will come first, will come before, if there's not enough before non-use value. If there's enough, then it's a moot point. If there's not enough, then the funds would kick in.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Okay. Again our concern is that at the end of the day it's not the taxpayers who have to pay for cleanup costs. You're saying that either the liability or the fund will cover that. It's just a question, I reckon....
Conservative
Jeff Watson Conservative Essex, ON
That was the point I was going to make. The fund would kick in and the fund is not capped. There may be a target to it, but the fund itself is not capped. Theoretically the only limitation at the end of the day might be the full capacity of the shippers to absorb the cost of it. That would be the only theoretical liability beyond the billion and the $250 million set aside, whatever else would have to come. That would be the only theoretical limitation.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
In committee we heard the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, CAPP, and the FCM say that they would like to see dangerous goods other than crude oil covered by the fund. I understand that might happen afterward. Can you tell us where we are at in terms of the process? Is it because we're looking at covering other types of dangerous goods, or is it something that will have to come from the minister? Where are we at on that front?
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
There are regulations that provide for scoping in other dangerous goods. A decision would have to be made by the government to move forward with that.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
The government would have to tell Transport Canada to cover other dangerous goods.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
That's right.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
At this stage we don't have anything yet.
Okay, thank you very much.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
This legislation doesn't cover anything other than oil.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
If I could, Mr. Chair, I have one last question on this issue of “involved” versus in “charge, management or control” at the time of the accident or release. Is it not the nature of the rail industry in Canada that shipments are regularly interchanged and passed off between different companies?
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Say there are three or four railway companies involved in a particular shipment, from point A to its final destination. Correct?
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
Under a certain level, yes.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
If there's an accident involving one of the four railways, who is responsible?
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
The question will be, who is the operator? I'm going back to the notion of operates. “Operate” is defined in the act in a way that it's the physical operation of a railway. It's not how you operate a business; it's the physical operation. You have to be involved while you physically operate your railway. If you have two railways that collide with each other, both railways are involved. If you have one railway that is involved in an accident, and the traffic was interchanged from another railway a hundred miles away, the other railway is not involved.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So you say, but in terms of causality I don't know if that's the case. Did you ask the insurance industry about this and the effects on insurance availability and coverage? What did they say when they looked at this question, or this wording that you say is commonplace, on whether a company is involved in a railway accident? If I'm a lawyer acting for one of these four railways, and I'm acting for the railway that had possession of the goods when the accident occurred, why wouldn't I construct the case that says the three other railways were involved as well?
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
I was only a part of one meeting. Lenore may be able to add something.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Ms. Duff, is there something you can help us understand in terms of plain English understanding?
