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.
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Larry Miller
First of all, we were going to have a motion to approve the amendment. We had that. Now you want to speak to the clause itself.
Go ahead, Mr. Mai.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Chair.
Again, my apologies for making you wait. My apologies, as well, for the heat.
We've heard from witnesses that the disaster or accident relief fund wouldn't cover environmental damage. Could you comment on that?
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
Covered damage for which railways are responsible under the first part of the liability regime is exactly the same damage covered under the fund. The damage covered under both regimes is entirely equivalent. Theoretically, environmental damage is covered by both.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
One of the concerns raised was the fact that the provincial or federal government wouldn't be able to sue for environmental damages. I don't necessarily mean cleanup costs but, rather, long-term environmental damages.
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
If we are talking about damage caused by a third party, the damages are the same.
But if we are talking about damages that represent the loss of the non-use value of public resources, only a government can claim for those damages. Individuals can't claim for those damages.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
If I understand correctly, then, it's still possible for a government to claim for environmental damages.
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
Both regimes are the same as far as covered damages are concerned. Now, as for who is allowed to make a claim under both regimes, that, too, is the same.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Hoang Mai NDP Brossard—La Prairie, QC
Very good.
Since I have the floor, I'd like to ask another question.
We did ask the minister when she came to the committee, and she said that she would submit to the committee the math that was used for calculation of the fund or the $250 million. I was wondering if it was tabled today.
Not today? Okay.
When the Minister of Transport appeared before the committee, she agreed to submit the math used to calculate the $250 million for the fund. So do you, as the Transport Canada representative, have those numbers? Can you provide them to the committee?
Again, it has to do with the calculations around the risk assessment.
For the risk assessment, from the start we've been asking for more information and more transparency for us to better understand the bill, and the minister did say that she would table the basis of the calculation to the committee.
I understand that we don't have it yet. Is it in the hands of Transport Canada? Can we expect to get that? Were you informed?
5:05 p.m.
Director General, Surface Transportation Policy, Department of Transport
I know that the minister did speak to that issue and said that the information would be forthcoming. I assume that it's just in process.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks.
I want to go back to the environmental litigation question. I didn't understand it, Mr. Langlois. Are you saying that under this bill the only party able to pursue a cause of action for ecological damages is the government?
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
If a party suffers damages—
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
If a person suffers damages—
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Not a person—if the environment suffers damages.
If, for example, the spill at Lac-Mégantic had not had a layer of natural clay, we would have seen thousands and thousands of litres of oil percolate through the soil into aquifers and then into watersheds. Is there a cause of action for any party to sue for damages that affect the environment?
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
A party.... I'll answer it in two portions. If a person suffers damages, they can claim. There is no question there. If there's damage to the environment, then there are costs incurred by government to clean up. Those costs are allowed. If there's loss of non-use value, the government is entitled to go after the railway up to the billion dollars and then to the fund for whatever is not covered. Well, assuming it's a class 1, it's a billion dollars, but if...it's whatever is covered by the insurance company.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
So if this bill passes, there's another Lac-Mégantic, and there are thousands if not millions of litres of fuel that spill into a river, what's the cause of action and who would actually proceed in civil courts?
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
The answer is who is going to clean it, and usually government goes out and cleans. In the case of Lac-Mégantic, the government went out and cleaned the oil. Costs incurred by governments are included, so those costs are eligible to be recovered, either against the railway or against the fund, depending on whether or not the insurance has been—
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I thought one of the witnesses who testified said that the only party, the only government, the only order of government, that would be authorized or eligible under this legislation to indemnify themselves for those costs was the federal government, not provinces and municipalities.
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel and Associate Head, Department of Transport
I'm not sure what the exact testimony was, but any costs or expense reasonably incurred by Her Majesty, or a province, or any other person in taking an action or measure in relation to railway accidents can be compensated, so it's pretty broad.