Well, Mr. Chair, in truth, that is not what the provision says.
The cabinet could make that decision, in its wisdom, to exempt facilities. This would put my constituents at risk from an installation that was put in place with zero consultation with the adjacent neighbourhood. I don't think they would be happy that the cabinet is empowered to exempt the operator from liability even if it might be the University of Alberta or some federal agency.
The provision, in fact, gives cabinet full discretion, by regulation, to reduce the amount of liability from any nuclear installation or class of nuclear installations. What's been revealed is that it's going to be the intention of cabinet to exempt those facilities.
Where is the consultation on this? Where's the guarantee that people who are potentially impacted by these exemptions are going to be directly consulted?
Even in the review of this legislation there were people who were not allowed to come forward to speak to concerns about this bill. I have zero confidence that the current cabinet is going to bend over backwards to consult with communities who are potentially impacted by a lessening of liability.
This gives a very broad power to the cabinet to exempt any facility. It could be a reduction or exemption of liability for all kinds of nuclear installations or for the transportation of nuclear material. It is a very broad-brush exemption and reduction of liability and it's, frankly, reprehensible.