Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to come back to the notion of the limits on liability that are a part of Bill C-3. Essentially it raises the limit of liability, but anything that goes above that limit would fall to other players, principally the government. The Lac-Mégantic debacle has shown us what happens when somebody doesn't have enough insurance; it's governments that pick up the cost. The tanker safety panel has actually not finished its report on hazardous and noxious substances, so we seem to be putting the cart before the horse in a way. We're amending the act before we have the tanker safety panel's recommendations.
But they have made recommendations on ship-source oil pollution. Without getting into oil—I know Mr. Watson will be offended if I talk about oil, because it's not really here—I want to talk about the concept they've put forward that polluters should pay, that taxpayers should never be on the hook for exposure to oil spills on our coasts, or to hazardous and noxious substances on our coasts. So recommendation 23 in their report suggests that if the government were to bankroll the additional...but then go back after the fund—whether it's the hazardous and noxious substance fund or the ship-source oil pollution fund, it doesn't really matter. The government would bankroll anything over and above the current limits or the limits as being proposed in the act, and that would then fall upon itself to back over the funds. But we would require some legislative change to this act to do that.
Are you suggesting or would you agree that we should amend this bill to provide that taxpayers won't be on the hook for exceedances of what the limits of liability are in these funds? I invite all three of you to respond.
Perhaps Ms. Legars first, because you're so far away.