Transport committee  Private companies have them.

Transport committee  That's a different amendment.

Transport committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  I will add that CN has 2,000 aluminum cars that are very small capacity and are basically at the end of their useful life. CP doesn't have any aluminum cars; all the cars that were provided to CP are all steel. In addition to those 2,000 aluminum cars, there are the cars purchased in 1972.

Agriculture committee  It's roughly the same; it's almost fifty-fifty. I think CP may have a few more than CN, but it's roughly fifty-fifty.

Agriculture committee  If you're interested, I'll describe the government fleet. It's not just federal. When we say government, that includes Alberta, Saskatchewan, and the Wheat Board cars. There are 12,100 federal cars; Saskatchewan and Alberta each have roughly 950; the Wheat Board has 3,800. Then the railways have their own fleet.

Agriculture committee  First of all, I think we need to clarify what was the purpose of that report. I know you were told by the Farmer Rail Car Coalition that the report was a validation of their business case. This was not the case of that report. That report was meant.... We asked the agency, at the request of both the FRCC and the railways, to determine a preliminary methodology in terms of if ever we got the law changed to make an adjustment to the revenue cap, what would be that methodology?

Agriculture committee  Yes. Roughly 2,000 of the steel cars were built before 1974. So they're old. We're assessing them and may remove them from service over the next five years.

Agriculture committee  No. The ones that will be refurbished are the other ones, which were built after 1974 and are in better condition. Like the railway companies, we think it's possible to repair them a little in order to keep them in service for wheat transportation.

Agriculture committee  Yes.

Agriculture committee  Of the 12,100 cars, 2,000 are made of aluminum. They're already in the last phase of their lives. We're going to remove them from wheat transportation service.

Transport committee  That's precisely what I'm saying. Owners are required to have a plan in place to deal with emergencies. As such, they must be able to demonstrate how they plan to comply with and enforce the provisions of the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act and to control carriers that use the bridges or tunnels.

Transport committee  We're not opposed to it. All we're saying is that this requirement is already spelled out in another piece of legislation, namely the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act.

Transport committee  I can't address the timing of it, but I can assure you that those plans are in place—the same way that their safety management systems plans are in place at all times.

Transport committee  I think you just answered your own question, Mr. Masse. Perhaps the best act to be addressing those points isn't the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act—not in this one, because this one pertains just to a bridge, which is an extension of the highway; that's all it is. A rail tunnel is an extension of the rail line.