It's rather like fixing a leaky rowboat by plugging 10% of the holes. I don't think this is really solving the problem. The problem is that you have an enormous catastrophe potential, and if the object of this legislation is to serve the interests of the Canadian public, I think it does a poor job.
In the United States of America, the Price-Anderson Act, which is the comparable legislation in that country, was passed at least 10 years before there was even thought about having such legislation here in Canada—the old Nuclear Liability Act—and they started back then at $560 million as the liability. They are now up to the billions of dollars in terms of nuclear liability. They're talking about $9.2 billion. That's a liability cap, because they know the damages would be far more than that.
I believe this legislation is....
Frankly, I regard it as a dishonest question. It's rather like the Clarity Act: are you going to ask an honest question or a dishonest question? The question that this act is really putting before this committee is do you approve nuclear power? Any vote for this bill will be taken as an approval of nuclear power. But they don't want to ask the question to you straight out; they want to ask it to you in an indirect way.