We're saying that the government is allowing for compensation due to economic loss, and my question references drinking water, or even contamination of soil. One can imagine a farming region where the soil is contaminated. The court assigns a certain amount of compensation for that loss, but would one be able to argue that the loss of drinking water is an economic loss to an individual? That's my concern.
I'm trying to understand where in the bill--if not here--we can identify what are often referred to as economic or biological services, environmental services. In a community, the loss in the value of a home with contaminated drinking water is a very difficult thing to assign. When I look at properties where I live and the difference between a house with reliable drinking water and one without.... It's a problem.
The loss of drinking water to a region with the size of Lake Ontario's water basin, by all anecdotal information, would be in the many billions, would it not, if Lake Ontario were contaminated in the event of nuclear accident? Again, I'm going back to referencing where this bill starts. It says that $650 million should be enough. That's ridiculous. That's what I'm trying to understand.
Could the contamination of Lake Ontario be seen as being caught under clause 15 here? I'm hearing no, that it wouldn't be derived as an economic loss to the City of Toronto....