Transport committee  Let's apply what is currently done for air transportation to rail transportation. If a plane were to crash at take-off or landing, the carrier would definitely not go before the courts to argue against the victim. Obviously the passengers would not be at fault. The same would apply in cases of train collisions or derailments.

Transport committee  Consider the case of a two-tiered regime. As I said, unless it's the victim's fault, the carrier is automatically liable. The current Carriage by Air Act allows for compensation if there is an air accident. That could simply be made mandatory for rail transportation. Some compensation would have to be provided to the victim very quickly, in the months following the accident, up to a first level.

Transport committee  In answer to your first question about a moral obligation, I will simply remind you of what happened in Canada approximately 20 years ago with the tainted blood scandal. In that specific case, civil liability on the part of the Department of Health was never established in the federal government court.

Transport committee  I learned last week that there were consultations. On top of teaching, I travel all over the world. For example, at the beginning of the month I went to France to speak about railway accidents. Next May I will be in Spain speaking about the Saint-Jacques-de-Compostelle tragedy. I only learned more or less yesterday that there had been an invitation to contribute and that the deadline was March 21.

Transport committee  Yes.

Transport committee  As you know, railway transportation is mostly under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, even if Quebec wanted to intervene in an accident such as Lac-Mégantic's, it would be unable to do so. It would have happened a long time ago were it possible. For example, the Automobile Insurance Act, which provides for automatic compensation, excludes trains simply because of jurisdictional issues, whereas in other states like Australia—I am choosing Australia as an example because its federal regime is similar to ours—not only are car accidents covered by automatic compensation, but train accidents are as well.

Transport committee  There are two ways of approaching this. The first would be to make only the carrier liable but the freight rates would vary according to the dangerous nature of the product and everyone would have that mandatory insurance. The second would be to make the carrier directly liable—ultimately it is their insurer who will have to pay compensation—and to give them a special subrogatory recourse right against the owner who would have shared liability for the goods in question.

Transport committee  This may surprise you, but that already exists in Quebec, and has been there since 1978. That is not recent. Since 1978, the Environment Quality Act stipulates that all owners of contaminants — and of course the act lists contaminants, including the oil that was being transported through Lac-Mégantic —, even if they are not in their control at the time of the accident, are responsible for the clean-up costs.

Transport committee  Good morning to all. I was invited to appear, but not told why. I will therefore be perceptive. Given that I am a specialist in liability, insurance and assessment of damages, I suppose I am here to speak about compensation rather than prevention. Since this morning, we have heard a great deal about safety and prevention.

Transport committee  I will try to do the same. Good morning, everybody. In a perfect world I would make my presentation in English but the problem is my English is only good after the first hour, and I don't think we're going to be here after an hour, so allow me to do it in French, please.