Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Transport and Communications
Issue 16 - Evidence, June 16, 2015
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 16, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications met this day at 10 a.m. to study Bill C-52, an Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act, as well as Bill C-627, an Act to amend the Railway Safety Act (safety of persons and property).
Senator Dennis Dawson (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Today, we will be examining two bills about the safety of the railway system. During the first part of the meeting, we will study Bill C-52. Afterwards, we will discuss Bill C-627.
[English]
To speak to the committee about Bill C-52, our first witness is the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Transport. We also have before us, from Transport Canada, Laureen Kinney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security; Shawn Tupper, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy; and Alain Langlois, General Counsel and Associate Head.
I will now invite the minister to make her presentation, after which we will go to senators' questions.
Hon. Lisa Raitt, P.C., M.P., Minister of Transport: Thank you, chair and members of committee. I am pleased to be here today to talk about Bill C-52, the safe and accountable rail act, which includes proposed amendments to both the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act.
Following the tragic train derailment in Lac-Mégantic, the government committed in its 2013 Speech from the Throne to hold railways and shippers more accountable for the costs of rail accidents. In response, I undertook a review of the liability and compensation regime for rail. The review included two rounds of consultations with a wide range of stakeholders. These included railways and shippers, provinces, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the insurance industry as well.
[Translation]
Our objective has been to ensure there are sufficient resources to adequately compensate potential victims and pay for clean-up costs in the event of an accident. The goal is also to make sure that polluters, and not the taxpayers, shoulder the financial burden.
[English]
Bill C-52 achieves this by creating a two-tiered system similar to the approach taken for marine oil tankers. The first tier enhances insurance for federally regulated railways, and the second would share accountability for rail accidents with shippers of crude oil or other designated goods through a supplementary compensation fund.
First, railways will be required to hold a mandatory level of insurance based on the type and the volume of dangerous goods that they carry. There will be four levels, ranging from $25 million for short lines that carry limited or no dangerous goods, to, at the top range, $1 billion for railways carrying significant amounts of dangerous goods, namely CN or CP.
The mandatory insurance requirements are risk-based, and they have been set based on an analysis of historical accident costs and the severity of past accidents involving certain goods. These insurance levels were determined because they would be adequate to cover the cost of the vast majority of potential accidents.
In the rare event of a larger-scale rail accident like the one experienced in Lac-Mégantic, a supplementary shipper- financed fund will ensure that all accident costs are recovered.
For rail accidents involving crude oil, railways physically or operationally involved in the accidents will be held automatically liable, without the need to prove fault or negligence, up to their insurance level. If the accident costs reach beyond the mandatory insurance level of the railway, the supplementary fund would cover the remaining damages.
We are going to finance the fund through a levy on shippers of $1.65 per tonne of crude oil transported by the federally regulated railway, which will be indexed to inflation. In the future, it is anticipated that other dangerous goods could be scoped into the fund, too, through regulation. The levy will be collected by railways and be remitted to a special account of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The aim of the fund is to capitalize it to $250 million. That is simply a notional target for initial capitalization, but it is not a cap or limit on the fund in general.
The bill also allows the Minister of Transport to discontinue and reimpose the levy, as necessary, for any specified period of time.
Based on the mid-range forecast of oil-by-rail traffic growth in the coming years, we have determined that a $1.65- per-tonne levy would take approximately five years to reach the capitalization. But no matter what this target is, the fund will cover all costs above the railway's insurance and will equally cover damage to people, property and the environment.
In the unlikely event that the damages from an accident surpass both the railway's mandatory insurance level and the amount held in the supplementary fund, the government would back up the supplementary fund through a loan from its Consolidated Revenue Fund, and any public monies loaned in this manner would be repaid with interest through levies on industry on the terms set by the Minister of Finance.
To ensure that the tiered regime functions as intended, Bill C-52 includes a robust enforcement mechanism. Administrative monetary penalties for violations will help ensure the railways comply with requirements regarding insurance, as well as levy collection and remittance.
Bill C-52's strengthened liability and compensation regime enhances insurance requirements; shares responsibility between railways and shippers, which had not been done before; clarifies the liability — an understanding that it's a strict liability up to the insurance level — and ensures compliance. In doing so, it makes certain that in the event of a rail accident there will be resources to compensate victims and clean up the environment.
This bill also contains amendments to the Railway Safety Act. Again, following the tragic derailment in Lac- Mégantic and to address the recommendations of the Auditor General of Canada's fall 2013 report, the proposed amendments to the Railway Safety Act further strengthen the oversight of federally regulated railways and Canada's railway system safety regime in the areas of information sharing, enforcement authority, safety management systems and accountability.
The first aspect is that these amendments provide a new authority for Transport Canada to regulate the sharing of information, records and documents from one party to another, other than from the entity to the department. For example, this covers a railway company to a municipality. This will help us address community requests for increased access to railway safety information.
Second, the bill introduces a broader power for the Minister of Transport to intervene where necessary in the interest of safe railway operations to require a railway to stop any activity that might constitute a threat to safe railway operations, or to take any corrective measures to address that safety threat. In addition to railways, this new power will allow the minister to order a road authority or a municipality to take specified corrective measures to address a concern related to railway safety.
The proposed amendments to the act also broaden the railway safety inspector's power to allow inspectors to intervene in a more effective way. When an inspector identifies an immediate threat to the safety of railway operations, the inspector will be able to order any person responsible for the threat — again, like a company, a road authority or a municipality — to take specific actions until the immediate threat has been removed to the inspector's satisfaction. These orders will remain subject to review through the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada upon request to the recipient.
Third, the amendments will further strengthen railway safety management systems by introducing a new power for the Minister of Transport to order a company to take corrective measures should a company's implementation of its safety management system risk compromising safety.
And, fourth, the amendments introduce a cost reimbursement scheme for provinces and municipalities to respond to fires believed to have been caused by a railway company's operations. The amendment gives the Canadian Transportation Agency the authority to determine if the fire was caused by a railway company's operation and to order that company to reimburse the province or municipality for the costs that they reasonably incurred in responding to the fire.
Building on these key amendments, other clarification and administrative amendments are proposed to further support a robust railway safety regulatory regime. By introducing the amendments to the Railway Safety Act, Canada is reiterating its commitment to a safe and secure national rail transportation system and for the safety of communities across the country.
Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.
The Chair: Thank you. On my list, I have both Senator Plett, the sponsor of the bill, and Senator Eggleton, who is the critic.
Senator Plett: Thank you, minister, for being here and explaining to us what I consider to be a very good piece of legislation and certainly a good response to the tragedy at Lac-Mégantic.
We had the teamsters in last week, minister, and their biggest concern seemed to be centred around fatigue management versus the science fatigue that we have now. Would you be able to explain your reasons for that change and what that change does?
Ms. Raitt: I'm glad Mr. Benson came and appeared before the Senate. I think you called him a senator, or someone made the mistake of referring to him as one.
Senator Plett: I certainly did not, but he was called that a few times.
The Chair: I nearly promoted him.
Ms. Raitt: He got a great thrill out of that.
The Chair: Who knows what will happen next October. Maybe the unions will want to be present in the Senate.
Ms. Raitt: I'm sure he had mixed emotions being called a senator on one hand, happy on the other hand.
I do appreciate the question and the teamster's point of view on it. I will ask Ms. Kinney to talk about the takeaway on this, and about the specifics, because it is a technical type of amendment.
Frankly, senator, we want to do all we can to help in terms of managing fatigue in all our modes. We have introduced measures in trucking and we've talked about it for a long period of time with pilot fatigue. We are doing something on the rail side. We think it is important to address this world. We don't want fatigued people driving trains or heavy pieces of machinery when they have passengers or goods.
Ms. Kinney can explain why we ended up going this route. There is a technical aspect, but it gives greater power to scope in more information on fatigue management rather than eliminate and specify to a particular issue.
Laureen Kinney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Safety and Security, Transport Canada: The issue was not whether there was a problem with the definition of fatigue management in science. This was put forward previously to move forward the agenda on fatigue management. But in terms of crafting it and how it was implemented into the act, it ended up being a definition that was restrictive because it only included the elements noted.
As we were working on the new, revised Railway Safety Management System Regulations and wanted to put more features in, as the minister referred, we found that was very restrictive. The second issue was that as definition, it was hard to enforce.
For us to be able to develop a scheme that was going to be more progressive in terms of fatigue management, as you will be see in the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, there is a significant list of additional features that must be considered when a company is developing their crew scheduling for certain occupations. Purely for that reason was this change made.
Senator Eggleton: I want to clarify that you are not removing anything. The idea of having the science factor in this is still very much there?
Ms. Kinney: Absolutely.
Ms. Raitt: Absolutely.
Senator Plett: That clarifies it and should address Mr. Benson's concerns. Aside from that issue, I felt they were supportive of the legislation, as were all witnesses, with the exception of Essex rail. Their concern is that they only go very, very short distances. He said 20 kilometres or something around that number. He felt that this was an undue hardship on them as they have to, by law, haul anything that somebody brings to them and the shippers have no responsibility; just the railways do.
Maybe you want to explain the reasoning behind that and whether he has a legitimate argument. I'm not advocating for any exemptions at this point, but that was certainly his request.
Ms. Raitt: I appreciate the question, senator.
We've had several meetings with the railway in question and they have made representations from the short-line association as well.
Let me start by saying this: Our economy will not work unless we have short-rail systems. We need them to cover the pieces of infrastructure where CN and CP do not. They are really important to local communities.
The reality for Essex is that based on the mix of cargo they carry and the distances they travel, they do get placed in the $100 million insurance requirements. We will phase it in first and hopefully that will give them a little reprieve in terms of absorbing the increased premiums. The problem, senator, is that we have to balance this risk against where they actually transport this cargo as well.
They are put in a certain level because of the volume and the type of cargo they carry, but equally, they are going through urban areas and a lot of different crossings. We understand there are several level crossings where you can unfortunately have a greater risk of accidents instead of going through an area where there is a separated grade. The damages that could happen in a densely populated area at a level crossing with this type do necessitate that it have $100 million in insurance.
The notion of them being exempt would put us in a situation where we are not taking into account those two things: the volume of what you're carrying and the area through which you are going. We will be watching and monitoring carefully what happens to Essex, as we will with all other short-line rail in Canada.
After what happened in Lac-Mégantic, senators, we have to get this polluter pays principle correct. The Governments of Quebec and Canada did what they had to do to stand by the citizens of Lac-Mégantic to clean up and to help compensate. There are attempts now to ensure that the victims do get compensated appropriately.
That is what this is driving toward so we don't have any of those loops or escape clauses.
Senator Eggleton: Picking up on the Essex issue, you can't have exemptions, but the risk factors for a little company like this are small. They say they don't travel more than 10 kilometres per hour, which is pretty slow. They just do what is called interswitch traffic and they rarely do oil. Of course, as I said, it's less than 10 kilometres an hour.
When one looks at the risk factors and the fact they have a pretty clean record, is there not some flexibility you would have in your consideration of the risk factors that might take into account a little guy like this?
Ms. Raitt: Mr. Tupper reminds me that we do have the power within this bill. I'm looking at our lawyer right now, Mr. Chair, and if it's okay, maybe he can help me out. We do have the power in this bill to make amendments on specific issues like that should it come to our attention.
Alain Langlois, General Counsel and Associate Head, Transport Canada: There is a provision in legislation that allows the Governor-in-Council to make regulations that would amend the schedule to add class to change the circumstance around the way the schedule is built. In the future, if the circumstance was to arise that warrants a change, the schedule could be amended.
Ms. Raitt: We are not locked in.
Senator MacDonald: I want to go back to the Essex line. Do you recall if they were the only short line that made representations of that nature to you?
Ms. Raitt: They certainly were the most vocal. In fact, the short lines are represented by a short-line association. We did have a specific meeting with the short-line rail that wanted to come in and have the discussion.
A short-line rail provider, for example, is Genesee & Wyoming. It is a very large operation; not a small operation. Essex is one of the bigger ones. Another railway in Alberta did make representations — Sandhills.
But there is concern at the amount of insurance. That's why we decided to do it in a phase-in, over a period of time. That allows us, with the power associated with the schedule, to determine the risk.
Senator, there are two things: polluter pays, and we have to make sure there is an appropriate sharing of risk for the entity first before you get to a consolidation fund.
Senator MacDonald: As you know, these financial considerations for short lines are important. We are trying to keep a railway open in Cape Breton, and any financial advantage that can be given to the short lines to make them more viable is important.
Your legal counsel mentioned there is provision for some revision. Is there any schedule in terms of reassessing this in three or four years?
Ms. Raitt: I guess we just leave it to the stakeholders to come and speak with staff.
Shawn, there would be a process involved.
Shawn Tupper, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, Transport Canada: As we gather data — because we will have reports submitted to us — we will do a continuous evolution in terms of looking at how the system is working, looking at the data we're getting, understanding new evidence as it comes forward with respect to the risks and accidents that we see within the system. This will allow us to give advice about what changes might be appropriate.
Senator MacDonald: So there's an opportunity for some redress.
Ms. Raitt: If I may, senator, there is one last answer for the question. I'm sorry I didn't say it earlier.
Currently, David Emerson is conducting a Canada Transportation Act review for us. It's pretty lengthy. I understand short-line rail has made representations and that he is seized with the issue of ensuring that our short-line rail is viable and still continuously feeding the larger network of rail in our country.
I think it is appropriate to see what comes out of his report. That will be delivered sometime before Christmas.
Senator Plett: Further to that, minister, we had an insurance broker here who, when I asked a question about risk versus reward and what the premiums were for someone like Essex, which had a perfect record, agreed that the kind of rates you have are clearly judged by the kind of record you have. If a company like Essex has a perfect record, its insurance rate would be lower as well.
Ms. Raitt: Yes. It will be market based.
Senator Plett: Right now, the only item we have that we're concerned about is crude oil. Are there not a lot of other dangerous goods being shipped, and can they be added through regulations at a later time if we feel that other fuels or other dangerous goods need to be added?
Ms. Raitt: We focused on crude in the first instance in light of what happened in Lac-Mégantic and also in light of the increase in terms of transportation by rail. The other types of dangerous goods, although you do see some increase, it's a much more shallow slope compared to the slope of increase you see in crude oil. Of course, as you increase the shipments by rail, you are increasing the risk associated with an accident by rail. So we determined it would be best to deal with crude first.
Putting aside for a moment the tragedy that happened in Lac-Mégantic and the terrible loss of life, crude oil is a difficult substance to clean up. It has an environmental aspect to it in terms of expense associated with the cleanup, so we thought it would be important to put the insurance in place for that.
Quite frankly, senator, I think everybody in the country was outraged when they realized MM&A was carrying only $25 million in insurance under the Canada Transportation Act. We had to do an analysis of what made sense and what was appropriate.
The fund is there to protect above the insurance limits. It is fully anticipated that the majority will get caught up in their own insurance levels in terms of being able to withstand and cover off an accident, and the fund is there just in case.
To give a mirror on this would be the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund. We started a levy in 1972 and discontinued it in 1974 because we had capitalized the entire fund. There's $405 million in that fund right now. Last year about $100,000 in monies were paid for claims against it.
It's just easier. You have an administrator. If you can't find who the polluter is or if it went above the limit of the insurance, you submit to the administrator. The administrator determines the claim and the claim is paid so that the victims — like in the case of Lac-Mégantic — don't have to go to court. That's the other aspect, too: to save, we stand in.
Senator Plett: If you say there is $405 million in that fund now, does that mean you would not be charging shippers anything for the foreseeable future?
Ms. Raitt: We have not charged in the Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund since 1974. We are hoping to capitalize it to the amount of $250 million in five years, and then after that, you don't charge the levy, providing the fund is there to continue to increase and grow with capital and be available.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you for being here. I support the intent of the bill. Let me pick up on something you said in your answer to the last question.
You only have crude oil shipments in at this point, and there are other hazardous goods. I'm reminded about the Mississauga disaster in 1979. That wasn't oil; that was propane and chlorine. It resulted in the evacuation of 200,000 people. Lac-Mégantic, if it had happened in a built-up area, could have had a lot more damage.
Why would you not put in other hazardous goods or at least commit to doing that within a year, because these are other concerns, just as they were in the case of Mississauga in 1979.
On the subject of the amount of insurance coverage that MM&A had, under this proposal, as I understand, they would be considered a class 2 level and would require an insurance policy of $250 million. The costs have climbed already to $500 million and are still climbing. As I say, if this happened in a large urban area, the cost would be an awful lot more.
I realize you are setting up the shippers' finance compensation fund, but if the principle here is polluter pay, why is the insurance not more and why are we not having other hazardous goods added now?
Ms. Raitt: I will start with the first one in terms of hazardous goods.
As I indicated before, we made a commitment in the Speech from the Throne that we were going to be taking a look at this. As we started doing the rounds of consultations, we quickly narrowed it down to crude oil for a couple of reasons. One was that we were seeing a rapid increase and needed to focus on a specific aspect. It was viewed that we needed to get this in place right away, and we also needed to leave open, for the future, the ability to scope in the others.
Currently, in the future and in the past, there is a working group associated with the minister's advisory council. It's called ACRS the Advisory Council on Railway Safety, and they continue, in a subgroup, to look at these issues in terms of getting to a better idea. The work with continue in the department.
In terms of priority, ethanol would be the next one on our list in terms of looking at whether or not to scope it in. That being said, I don't know if you had witnesses from the chemical industry in Canada, because they definitely have a point of view about whether or not they should be scoped in.
We have taken the first step to indicate that we believe that shippers will be liable as well, and we will continue to follow through on that. It was a matter of getting the crude oil in place first and foremost for the sake of ensuring that we have something in place, because this is where we are seeing the increase of oil by rail.
On MM&A, carrying the level of insurance is the important first part, getting the levels correct, and we believe we've got the levels correct given the risk. It's hard to compare anything to Lac-Mégantic. It was an unfortunate incident where operating rules were not followed. An individual did not set the requisite amount of handbrakes. As result, on a grade into a community, this happened.
When you indicate that you're going to have strict liability for the insurance level, there will be a fund on top of it, and when you increase the ability to do administrative monetary funds, when you change the tank car that is going to be utilized, these are all the things that go into consideration of protecting against an accident happening. The level of insurance is only one aspect to it, and it's there to make sure the polluter pays.
As well, you have to balance it against the fact that we want to move our resources in the country and ensure our economy continues to flow. Rail is incredibly important for that as well.
It's a balancing act. You want to get the right level of insurance, and you want to protect the communities and the individuals. We've been bringing this along step by step since 2007, starting way back with original reports from committees of what to do in terms of railway safety. You have already considered Railway Safety Act amendments three or four years ago and then again this year.
It's a continuum. We think we have the right levels of insurance. We have brought in operational changes that will protect foremost from derailment. In the case of a derailment, with the new tank-car standard, there will be less of an escape of fluid or contents of the railcar. If there is a cleanup that needs to happen or people that need to be compensated, they can do it easily, without pain to the victims themselves.
Senator Eggleton: I hope in the answer to the first part that you are keeping a pace on this whole matter of these other substances because remember Mississauga in 1979.
Ms. Raitt: Thank you, senator.
Senator Eggleton: Let me turn to the question of capacity and resources. There is the insurance scheme, but there is the issue of keeping the rail lines safe, and that involves capacity and resources.
In 2013 the Auditor General was quite critical, noting that only 26 per cent of all required rail safety audits were performed. VIA Rail is passenger, but according to him there wasn't one safety inspection done.
Since Lac-Mégantic you have said that only one additional inspector has been added, bringing the total to 117 inspectors.
The Auditor General also criticized the skills or training of the inspectors and indicated that the inspections were inadequate. On top of that, your department has taken 20 per cent budget cuts in the last number of years, all of which have an impact on your ability to keep the rail lines safe.
What are you doing to change things, add inspectors and upgrade their skills to provide the funds necessary to back up this legislation? It is one thing to have legislation and give the minister authority, but if you don't have the resources and capacity to do it, it isn't going to get done. It doesn't mean anything.
Ms. Raitt: In 2013 when I came in there were a number of reports that came out, one from the Auditor General and we got the Transportation Safety Board report. So Transport Canada as an entity, and I as the minister, have all the pieces together in terms of how to do better and move forward.
I would say, senator, I understand the $20 million figure that you put forth, but the reality is in railway safety we were up $1 million in funding last year. If you look at safety in general, there may be some areas where there was discontinuance of a program; but on the safety side, Laureen reminds me that when we started in 2014 we had 102 oversight staff, and for personnel at the end of Q4, in March, we were at 122. So we are looking at moving ahead and getting more oversight.
At this point, I can do this as an advertisement. We have advertised on LinkedIn, on transportation areas, Monster and Workopolis. We are looking for these inspectors both on the marine and the Transport Canada side. We want them to come forward and go through the process of incorporating them into Transport Canada. With the new powers, especially with administrative monetary policies, we will be able to find those issues that are happening in rail and deal with them right away instead of having the only way to deal with it by going to court. That will be an incentive for us as well.
I can assure you, senator, the department understands the importance that we place in the other place on oversight on rail safety. They have appeared many times at the other place's committee on the issue detailing what they have done since the Auditor General's report. They answer to me as well on a continuing basis as to what they are doing to move that ahead.
They are good people, though, at Transport Canada, and they understand the importance of doing their job correctly. I have full confidence in their ability to make sure that we get to the right place. Having been given all the information and all the criticism, this is their opportunity to get it right, and they are on the right track, no pun intended.
Senator Eggleton: You are increasing the number of inspectors to 122. You didn't say anything about the training or the way that inspections are conducted, which the Auditor General also pointed out.
Ms. Raitt: Yes. The deputy minister and his team have taken all of these matters to heart.
The most important part is we are the oversight of the oversight, in essence, as ministers, senators and members of Parliament. It is the job of the public service to implement the direction in which we would like them to go. That is exactly what they are doing, but it is important to monitor them as well. That is what we continue to do by having them appear at committee, write reports and by having benchmark reports coming to the minister on what is happening. It is management. Thank you.
Senator Neufeld: You have answered a number of questions, and I feel comfortable that you are looking at other dangerous goods being shipped and your reasoning for targeting crude only with this bill.
I notice there is some difference between transport as it relates to pipelines moving the same product. Pipeline carriers are held wholly responsible — not the shipper, no one else — if there is a break, and they have to have $1 billion worth of liability; if it is over that, I am sorry, it will cost you more.
You say that you are putting in place a supplementary shipper finance compensation fund. I am not saying I have a problem with it. I would like to know what you think the difference is between pipelines and rail transport. We just did a bill on pipelines. That doesn't do any of that.
Ms. Raitt: We have a couple different regimes we can choose from. We have a marine regime, which I described already, which was paid for by the shippers in terms of the levy. We have the pipeline regime, which you have taken a look at. Both in the case of the pipeline and the larger rail company, $1 billion is the standard. CN and CP carry more than $1 billion in insurance, and they are the first ones that are responsible for an accident. It is strict liability and they have to pay.
Looking at the environmental side of it and the volumes we are dealing with in these oil trains and in marine and the sensitivity around the water sources and where they are in communities, it was determined that we were going to follow the marine basis instead of the pipeline basis, which was to have this fund available for the cleanup should it exceed the $1 billion mark or the level that the smaller railways are asked to take into consideration. We think it is the right one.
The other aspect is that you can have a number of different entities involved. You can have physical operations. You can have those who are involved operationally in the rail, and you want to capture those as well. We decided to go down that path. I think it is the right path, given, quite frankly, the sheer cost associated with Lac-Mégantic. We got a good idea of what it can be.
Turning to some other oil-by-rail accidents, derailments that have happened, in the case of CN they have assumed full responsibility and liability, and they clean those up. They did so within their insurance limits, and they didn't have to go to any other sources. Having that fund in place is for the "just in case,'' just in case it goes into a water source or there is greater environmental damage.
Senator Neufeld: Most of the oil is transported by pipeline. If there is any place where there is volume it is within pipelines, not on rail.
I am not disputing that you shouldn't have that fund, but there is quite a difference. Why wouldn't we treat pipelines the same and have a fund there? I received your answer, and you have decided to follow the marine example, and that is okay.
In the rail industry — heaven forbid it happens again — but if we had something larger than what has taken place with Lac-Mégantic, at the end of the day it is the taxpayers that will pick up the difference, if it is more than $1.5 billion or somewhere in that neighbourhood.
Ms. Raitt: Correct.
Senator Neufeld: Then the taxpayers pay. That is also a comparison with pipelines, because pipelines travel through waterways and close to the ocean, but it is the carrier that pays. It is quite different.
Ms. Raitt: You may appreciate, senator, the fact that the pipelines are managed by the Minister of Natural Resources, and I have the rail side of it. We came out after they did, and we thought this was the best program for us moving forward.
I will not argue the policy point, but we do think this is the right way to go and to line it up with how we are dealing with the marine aspect of it, of a sudden, complete emptying of the contents of a large train or vessel.
Senator Neufeld: Sure. Don't get me wrong; I don't want you to pigeonhole me. I am saying that I agree with what you are doing.
My last question concerns inspections. The NEB has dramatically picked up inspections on pipelines, as Transport Canada has with rail. They apply a levy to the pipeline companies, the carriers. Is the same thing done through Transport? Can you apply a levy to all transporters of crude oil to actually hire more inspectors or to look at those safety factors so that it doesn't cost the public purse money but rather those that go out there to do the business and make a dollar to actually pay for the costs? Is that a thought process?
Ms. Raitt: A cost-recovery system. There are some pockets of cost recovery within Transport Canada. The one I would indicate is when a vessel needs to be inspected on an annual basis, there are fees associated with that. All those things go into ensuring that safety regime at Transport Canada.
There is a bit of user pay inserted in that. It is not contemplated that this levy goes to Transport Canada; quite differently, it is contemplated that this is a separate part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which will grow in interest, to ensure that it's there for the purpose of cleanup and compensation. It is not to go into Transport Canada in and of itself, although I am sure that they would love that — for it to be made available for Transport Canada for its activities.
As I said, in terms of user pay, we currently deal with it. In certain pockets, there are certain levies for inspection services of inspectors.
But in the case of rail, the oversight on the rail side is one in which they act by government funding. They are there to ensure that there is safety, that they are overseeing safety management systems, and checking on that and that they are looking into any complaints that there may be.
Senator Neufeld: I would argue the same rationale for the NEB regarding inspections of pipelines, plants and facilities that they inspect on a regular basis.
Ms. Raitt: Cost recovery?
Senator Neufeld: Cost recovery. That's an idea that people should think about.
Ms. Raitt: There is no cost recovery in rail. I will just clarify that.
Senator Oh: My question to you, minister, will be on the transportation safety concern. Do all the shippers require a special permit or need to inform Transport Canada on the dangerous goods they are slipping through high-density or open areas?
Ms. Raitt: Laureen will talk about the emergency orders that we have put in place. We have put in place several emergency orders dealing with the transportation of dangerous goods, either in terms of appropriate testing and labelling, all the way through to how fast you can go through urban centres that you talked about.
Since she lives this day to day, I will let her get it precisely correct, otherwise I cause railways to be very concerned when I talk about speed limits. I may be off by 5 miles per hour.
Ms. Kinney: There are several aspects to this issue, in particular related to crude oil. The minister did direct us to issue an emergency directive that set in place, I believe in April 2014, the response to the Transportation Safety Board's recommendation in this area. It established a requirement for all railways that transport over 10,000 carloads of crude oil and/or mixed dangerous goods in a train to develop a risk assessment and a plan to mitigate those risks, and to also establish certain provisions at that time in terms of additional inspections and speed limitations.
That has been a continuously evolving work, so there have been updates to those emergency directives added for more information from the Transportation Safety Board or other events that have occurred.
I would also note that we have, through the minister's direction, established a protective direction on the transportation of dangerous goods side that mandated that companies — shippers, primarily, but also railways — that transport these crude oil products must have an emergency response plan in place. That was a legal mandate. They must have an approved plan. If they have any variance from that, we can enforce on that. That has also been put in place.
In terms of real-time monitoring of where exactly the carloads are going, that is not something that we do at this point. We set up the regime and require the operators to look at those risk factors and plan for them. Then we look at them and oversee how they do that.
Senator Oh: How quick is the turnaround to get permission, because that affects the cost of doing business?
Ms. Raitt: For a company that wishes to transport oil by rail.
Ms. Kinney: A new company beginning to transport, one that is establishing a new business completely as a new rail operator — and we have had a few in the last while — needs to get a railway operating certificate. As part of the rail operating certificate approval process, they must demonstrate that they have a proper capacity to follow all the rules and regulations.
If a railway company significantly changes any of their operating conditions — so if they add a significant volume of any seriously dangerous good, product, et cetera — they are required to do a risk assessment under the Railway Safety Management System Regulations, look at the factors involved and address these. Again, this is something we look at when we inspect the companies.
Senator Oh: Thank you. Good safety practice.
Senator Plett: I have just one question, minister, and it is a supplementary to what Senator Neufeld was talking about when we said that if you go to $1.5 billion, taxpayers would be on the hook for $250 million, or whatever it is.
Let's say that happens — I hope it doesn't — but let's say we have an accident that is $1.5 billion, and we have $1 billion insurance and $250 million in the levy fund that you have capped. Now we are short $250 million, so you will start the levy again —
Ms. Raitt: Yes.
Senator Plett: — to bring that up. Would you first pay back the $250 million and cap it again at $250 million? That would mean that taxpayers would not be on the hook in the long run; shippers, insurance companies and railways would be on the hook.
Ms. Raitt: In that scenario, which we hope will never come to fruition, the first $1 billion comes from the insurance; the second $250 million comes from the fund; and the next excess would be a loan from the Consolidated Revenue Fund into this shipping fund, specifically. It would be on terms that the Minister of Finance deems.
From our point of view, I could see, hypothetically, that the policy point would be: first, pay the loan back to the Canadian government CRF, and then recapitalize the fund all over again. That would be the logical way, and that is the way that we set this bill up.
Senator Plett: Then the taxpayer would not be on the hook; it would be a loan.
Ms. Raitt: Correct. Yes.
Senator Plett: Let me simply say thank you, minister. I think you have a great bill here, as you have had in other legislation that you have brought forward. I am looking forward to passing this quickly.
Ms. Raitt: And I appreciate you sponsoring it, senator. Thank you.
Senator Eggleton: The government rightly announced new standards in terms of the rail cars to gradually remove the DOT-111 cars. The problem is that the deadline for replacement is 10 years, as I understand it, but the Transportation Safety Board says that these cars are unsafe and dangerous now. The number of cars taking crude oil has grown astronomically over the last few years. Are you going to accelerate this?
Ms. Raitt: I appreciate the question.
Last April, we did a quick shedding of the most dangerous cars — about 5,000 of them. We said that in 30 days they have to be out of the shipment of crude and ethanol. That was done as simply as indicating on the car that the car cannot be utilized for shipping. These cars can be used for other substances very safely; they're just not appropriate for crude and ethanol.
Two things are happening in terms of this timeline. First of all, we had to align with the United States. That was important because these go back and forth across the border several times, possibly, in a shipment. Definitely the intention is to have a North American system. In our discussion with the United States, we did take into consideration a few things, one of two things being the manufacturing capacity for the retrofitting of these new cars or the building of the new car standard.
The departments looked at how to put it in a schedule that makes sense. Of course what makes sense is to get the most dangerous cars out of the system first. They are the ones that have shorter timelines. For example, in 2017, we have another raft of cars that are not allowed to be utilized for crude or ethanol. Those are the unjacketed cars. That is one in which we have seen, in Transportation Safety Board reports, the necessity to remove them. That is an aggressive timeline.
We have been aggressive with the United States. In fact, we are six months ahead of them in terms of those unjacketed cars. Our date is May 1 and their date is December 31. We are ahead of them; then we line it up.
From our part of the world, I went to see National Steel Car in Hamilton. They manufacture tank cars. They have two shifts working around the clock and their orders are significant. They have adopted the new tank car standard. They got out of the gate first. For them to put on a third line is possible. We are looking for that as well, to have them backfill the manufacturing side.
When we do our analysis on how we can possibly retrofit and replace these cars, you can't assume that a new company will open or that a current company will tool up even quicker, but that is what we are seeing happening. Even though the dates are there, the people purchasing these cars want the new cars and they want the best cars because they don't want to be stuck with liability associated with an accident. They know that these cars are the ones that they want to have.
We continue to encourage what happens in other areas. I do hear from other parts of the country. Saskatchewan, for example, is interested in possibly starting up a manufacturing aspect to this, too. The market will respond to these dates and the dates are very doable.
The unfortunate part of it in the United States is that the dates are being challenged in the courts on the rule. They will have their process down there but we will continue on our schedule up here. I think you will see us ahead. We can only pull them so far in terms of their dates.
Senator Eggleton: But you are going at a faster schedule.
Ms. Raitt: We are going at a faster speed and they are going to get slowed down.
Senator Eggleton: Particularly on the worst cars?
Ms. Raitt: Yes on the worst cars, six months ahead of time.
Senator Eggleton: If long-term environmental damage is done from one of these spills — hopefully that will not happen — this bill doesn't allow for citizens or citizens' groups to sue the railways or whoever has been responsible for damages they have personally endured. Why has the government left them out of the possibility of suing?
Ms. Raitt: There is a limit on the insurance level and a limit on their strict liability. However, there is not a limit on their liability. I would look to Alain on this. If there is a case of negligence that can be proven, they are not capped by the $1 billion or the $250 million. There is a route through the courts, if they can show — I don't know what level of negligence it is.
If you are okay with it, Mr. Chair, Alain can answer.
The Chair: Sure.
Mr. Langlois: Any person affected by a derailment can claim against the railway or the fund any damage it suffers. It is not limited. If it is property damage, personal damage, environmental damage, they can claim against the railway; they can claim against the fund. In that aspect, an environmental claim is allowed for a person or private citizen to the extent that they actually suffer damage.
What is restricted to the Crown is if there is environmental damage at large that is not suffered by a citizen or by private parties. So a private party that does not suffer damage cannot claim against the railway or the fund. Normally, like in Lac-Mégantic, the government stepped in and cleaned it up. The act says for anything that is beyond property or environmental damage suffered by a citizen, the expectation is that government and municipalities will go in and clean up, so it is these governments that are entitled to claim these damages.
Senator Eggleton: Are there not time frames on this? Sometimes the environmental damage may not be detected for some period of time.
Mr. Langlois: There are limitations in the act to claim.
Senator Eggleton: What is that?
Mr. Langlois: It is three years from the discovery of the damage.
Senator Eggleton: Okay.
Mr. Langlois: It is through both the fund and the claim against the railway.
Senator Eggleton: For my last question, firefighters are first responders and would be on the scene for these kinds of tragedies. Fire chiefs apparently — and I guess this was a committee in the house — asked that some of the money from the shippers compensation fund be used toward training them to be able to deal with these kinds of situations. Are you agreeable to that?
Ms. Raitt: I was just whispering with Laureen because I do know that this is an issue. I have spoken to the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs about it. Both they and the Aboriginal fire chiefs sit on an emergency task force for us with respect to dealing with these kinds of issues of response. I was clarifying with Laureen that I do receive quarterly reports and I have read them. Their final report is coming out, but they are still struggling with this issue you brought up, which is how do you ensure financing of this training going forward? We will always be open with the concept of training and we want it to happen, but it is the mechanism.
On this task force, they are sitting at railways, municipalities and shippers. It is a pretty big group and they are making their case for them in terms of how we go about ensuring this happens. Maybe Laureen can give more granularity on it.
Ms. Kinney: What may be of interest to the committee is the kind of work that they have already accomplished, which is developing consistent training approaches of what is required for firefighters and other first responders to respond to this type of event, because it is so different and is becoming more of a risk with the volumes going up. They have developed some training standards and have been working on a number of areas like that.
They have been discussing whether the existing railway and shipper-funded training and equipment support programs that are already in place are sufficient. As you can imagine, there is still a fair bit of discussion going on with that. Whether they will come forward with a recommendation on that, I don't know.
Senator Eggleton: The issue here is for the municipalities, the property taxes shouldn't have to absorb that. This should be part and parcel of this whole endeavour.
Ms. Raitt: I think there is some question about whether or not the railways should be more involved. We have been pitched, as you probably know, for a part of this levy to be going into training. I expect that will be a recommendation that may not be recommended by the committee at large, but maybe the firefighters will. It will all go into the mix. We continuously look at rail safety, both in prevention and ensuring that we can clean it up appropriately and respond to it, and that the polluter pays at the end of the day.
We continue to work on those three principles. I am grateful for the work that the task force is putting into it.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. Please consider that, maybe a separate fund.
Thank you very much for your answers.
Ms. Raitt: Thank you, senator.
The Chair: Thank you to the minister and thank you to the witnesses.
Honourable senators, we will now begin our consideration of Bill C-627. This bill proposes to amend the Railway Safety Act to improve public safety by providing to the relevant authorities the power to issue orders if a railway work or railway operation poses a threat to the safety of persons or property.
We have invited the sponsor of the bill, Ms. Joyce Bateman, Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Center.
[Translation]
Ms. Bateman, you have the floor.
[English]
Joyce Bateman, Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you. I hope to answer any questions you might have on my private member's bill, Bill C-627, An Act to amend the Railway Safety Act (safety of persons and property).
[Translation]
As everyone knows, transportation security in general, and rail safety in particular, is one of the priorities of our government.
[English]
I'd like to highlight the leadership, and you just saw it, of our Minister of Transport in this regard, who really has reacted very effectively to gaps in the system. I have found another gap that I would like to fill in the interests of rail safety. Indeed, the current legislation does not allow the minister or her rail-crossing inspectors to close a rail crossing when it presents a risk for pedestrians, cyclists, and persons in wheelchairs or in vehicles.
[Translation]
My private member's bill will improve that situation for the entire country.
[English]
I have heard loud and clear from my constituents that rail safety is an issue that matters to them. As the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg South Centre, I share in this vision of wanting to see our crossings safe, whether for a child riding a bike across a crossing, for a senior in a motorized wheelchair, or for any vehicle.
Rail crossings crisscross my riding, and the safety of them can be enhanced. Therefore, I chose to use my private member's bill to achieve greater rail safety in my constituency with the happy consequence that Canadians all across the country will be safer and more secure because of this bill. It really was inspired by an event in my riding, which I found was not possible to fix under the current law.
[Translation]
My bill is about prevention, and proposes to enhance the Railway Safety Act by seeking to give additional powers to the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, and to railway safety inspectors so they may intervene when required in order to better ensure the safety of citizens, property and communities.
Additionally, this proposed legislation seeks to empower railway safety inspectors so that they may quickly intervene to restrict the use of unsafe works and equipment, and to forbid or restrict the use of unsafe crossing work and road crossings.
What I propose in my private member's bill is that the minister and her inspectors have the power to shut down a railway crossing, if necessary, if the safety and security of any Canadian is at risk.
[English]
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your kind attention. It will be my pleasure now to answer any questions you and your colleagues may have.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Bateman.
Senator Plett: Ms. Bateman, thank you for being here today to explain the very important bill you propose.
I want you to share with the committee the story that led to this bill. You said that something had led you to bring this bill forward — an incident in your riding. Could you share that with the committee?
Ms. Bateman: Absolutely, senator.
In 2007 we had a terrible accident in Winnipeg South Centre. A lovely lady was waiting for a hip replacement. My riding has a wonderful seniors' facility and a wonderful restaurant, with a railway running between the two. She was going across in her motorized wheelchair and it got stuck in the crevices, if you like. The motorized vehicle is quite heavy and fell on her as it lurched into the crevice. But for a Good Samaritan who pulled her free, she would have been no more. That resonated greatly in the community.
When I was speaking with the minister, I found that she did not have the authority to close a crossing under the law. There's a legislative gap. I said that I'd like to fill that gap. That was the inspiration and motivation for my bill, and I'm very hopeful it will be successful.
Senator Plett: I certainly agree with the last comment. We'll make every effort to make sure that it is.
The gap you talked about is not covered in Bill C-52; is that correct?
Ms. Bateman: That's right. The gap was something that I identified, and it just so happened that Bill C-627 was formulated before Bill C-52 was finalized. I should give you every assurance that the House of Commons committee, when they did their clause-by-clause review of Bill C-627, they made sure it dovetailed with Bill C-52.
But, yes, this is a piece that was not covered.
It's about prevention, preventing accidents, whether it's an impact on one life or on an entire community like Lac- Mégantic. It's wonderful if we can solve the problems before they happen.
Senator Plett: Hear, hear.
Can you give us an example of how your bill would impact the construction of railways in the case that municipalities or adjacent landowners feel that people's safety or the safety of property is at risk?
Ms. Bateman: That's an interesting question. Everybody is interested in rail safety. Equally in my consultations in the development of this bill, I found that people in municipal governments are very interested in rail safety and prevention issues. I had consultations with the Transport officials, the minister and the teamsters, and they are very much in favour of this bill as well.
Senator Plett: And they have let us know that.
Ms. Bateman: Wonderful. I understand the gentleman was busy with another issue, but they are very supportive.
Of course, I also reached out to the companies that manage the rail systems in this country.
With regard to how it impacts future development, the focus was how we maintain and make sure that what we have in our communities is safe for our families and communities. Without question, when something is enshrined in law, I think people take it very seriously when they are developing the next tranche. So I'm hopeful that not only would the bill make sure that we maintain existing facilities to ensure safety, but also that we would make sure that any new facilities developed would have that uppermost in mind.
Senator Plett: You mentioned in your opening statement that the minister and inspectors can shut down crossings. Is that jointly or is that individually? Could either the minister or the inspector shut down the railways? If not, what added power is there specifically for the inspectors in your bill?
Ms. Bateman: The bill is very clear and the legislation is very clear that the minister has the power and so do the inspectors, who clearly report to her under the auspices of Transport Canada. There is a separate clause addressing each of them in the bill. That's important, because she is a very comparable and competent minister but she can't be everywhere.
The current structure has it so that she cannot close down a crossing to prevent an accident, nor can her large cadre of railway inspectors. I'm hopeful that that case will change. The issue is dealt with separately in the legislation.
Senator Plett: Just to be clear, if I'm an inspector and I come along and see an incident like you described — a lady lying there, and I don't know that you suggested that it was because there was something unsafe — clearly I see that this is unsafe. That's why this accident happened. I can that day shut down that crossing until these concerns have been dealt with, or what is the process?
Ms. Bateman: Rather than wait for the lady to be lying prostrate, I think the role of the inspector is to look at the rail lines and determine if they are being maintained properly, if they are safe, or if a bicycle, wheelchair or whatever could get entrapped in this space.
The intention of this bill is to empower the inspectors. Obviously you saw the cadre of very eminent and capable people, lawyers and policy analysts who were working with the minister this morning on Bill C-52. There is a process and a hierarchy.
I don't think any inspector will unilaterally do something, but they will have the power, based on their sight inspections, to make the recommendation. I'm sure there will be safeguards within the system, as there currently are.
Right now, that same inspector going and seeing a crossing, perhaps where you live, will have no power to shut that down. From my perspective, prevention is eminently more important than solving problems after they occur, whether there is economic impact or personal impact.
So, yes, the inspector under this private member's bill will have the right to shut down a crossing that is deemed unsafe where somebody could be badly hurt.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you very much. First of all, I applaud your concern about the issue of the safety of individuals at rail crossings.
You've probably answered my first question, which would have been: Why would this be a private member's bill when we have all this activity on the government side in terms of legislation flowing out of the incident at Lac- Mégantic? I think you've answered it by saying that all of this dovetails with the legislation being put forward by the government, because that's important. You can sometimes amend an act, and it can create an unintended consequence in another part of the act. I think you have covered that. You have said that this is all dovetailing.
Ms. Bateman: Yes.
It just so happened that we have the right to draft a private member's bill at a certain point in time. And at that time, I brought forward this idea. It just happened to be ahead of Bill C-52.
Senator Eggleton: Good for you.
I picked up a comment from the House of Commons committee from Michael Bourque, President of the Railway Association of Canada. He said:
. . . Section 4 of the current Railway Safety Act already states that "regard shall be had not only to the safety of persons and property transported by railways but also to the safety of other persons and other property'' in determining whether railway operations are safe, or whether something constitutes a threat to safety.
ln addition, under section 31 of the current Railway Safety Act, railway safety inspectors, on behalf of the Minister of Transport, already have the power to order a rail line or crossing to be closed, or the use of railway equipment to be stopped, if they deem it to be a threat to safety.
So he is suggesting that this is redundant.
Ms. Bateman: I'm sure this gentleman is very eminent in his field. I don't know this individual personally. I do know that when I presented this idea and went to the minister and her officials, it was made clear to me that there is currently a legislative gap and it should be filled. That is the essence of my bill.
Senator Eggleton: Okay. One more question.
The Grade Crossing Improvement Program provides a contribution of up to 50 per cent of the cost of a crossing improvement project. The maximum contribution to a recipient for a single project is $550,000.
That all sounds all very good, but some municipalities are saying that the information on the program is scarce — it's hard to come by — and the money is hard to access. I understand the result of that is that some $3 million has been left unspent in that account.
These are important resources that these municipalities can use. What is the situation there? Can you do something to help move that along better for the municipalities?
Ms. Bateman: As you know, we make all sorts of information and programs available. It's the municipality's responsibility to decide how best to allocate scarce resources to access the various programs. I personally hope they embrace all of these infrastructure opportunities that the federal government has made available to them.
Senator Eggleton: They say that they knock on the door and there is nobody there. They are having a hard time.
I realize it's a separate bill, but it helps the implementation of this whole endeavour if you can improve these crossings. It's a great preventative move. I hope you'll have a look at that to see if municipalities can get access, rather than having money left in the fund.
Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: I have two brief comments. First, I would like to say, Madam Member, that your French is as good as mine, if not better.
Ms. Bateman: I am still a student, and you are one of my teachers.
[English]
Senator Mockler: As a former Minister of Transportation for the Province of New Brunswick, I believe it is a great initiative. Generally speaking, rail companies are the local road authority responsible for the pedestrian infrastructure at rail grading crossings, so how is the responsibility for the pedestrian crossing surface determined? How is the quality or type of crossing surface determined? I agree with you when you say —
[Translation]
You are proposing that dangerous railway crossings be shut down.
Ms. Bateman: Yes, that is essential, because I think prevention is always the most important thing. Railway transportation is a partnership between the municipalities and the companies. As always, we can accomplish more when we work together.
[English]
It can vary, but the very crossing that was my inspiration for this bill, I know that that one, there was a consultation between the municipality and the rail company in question, and they worked together to address the issues. Of course, at that point that rail crossing was actually shut to accomplish the upgrades.
[Translation]
As always, things will get done more effectively if we work together.
[English]
Senator MacDonald: Ms. Bateman, thank you for being here. I have to commend you on this bill; I think it's a great idea.
I'm a little taken aback by the numbers here. I am surprised there are 28 serious injuries and 25 fatalities annually at crossings in Canada. I would never have assumed it was that high. Have they done any analysis on the impact of this bill in terms of these types of fatalities across the country?
Ms. Bateman: My understanding is that Transport Canada does analysis on all injuries, fatalities and issues related to not only railway safety, as is our interest here today, but throughout.
My lens on this bill was a question of prevention. To me, one person being hurt is one too many. If we have the tools to get the job done, we're better off. One of the tools clearly identified to me was that the minister did not have the right to shut a crossing point, and so that was my focus. I'm aware that Transport has done enormous work on that analysis, and last July when we were busy doing that work this was all part of the mix.
Senator MacDonald: We will have a better feel for it when they have a few years of data to look at.
Ms. Bateman: Once you change the right to close something, hopefully going forward, it significantly impacts those numbers.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
[Translation]
Ms. Bateman: Thank you.
The Chair: I agree with my colleague, Senator Mockler, about the quality of your French, and I congratulate you for it.
Ms. Bateman: Thank you.
The Chair: It is always positive to give such a good example.
[English]
Honourable senators, tomorrow evening, if you agree, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration on both Bill C-52 and Bill C-627. We will also continue our review of a draft report on our CBC study.
Senator Eggleton: The other witnesses for today?
Senator Plett: Both witnesses replied that they were not available.
The Chair: I should have forwarded the letter of the clerk. They did write a letter saying that they support the bill.
Senator Plett: The teamsters sent a note that I was going to read into the record regarding their support of the bill, but I had deleted it from my BlackBerry, unfortunately. I or the clerk can still do that tomorrow. The group you had asked for also replied they couldn't make it.
The Chair: I should have informed you about that. The chair takes the whole responsibility.
(The committee adjourned.)