That's a good question and one that fundamentally concerns us. The fact that there will be nobody responsible means that we will be left with the mess if a project goes horribly wrong.
I think about the nuclear waste facility at Chalk River as an example. The technology they're proposing to use is supposed to protect this site for 300 years, but many of the radionuclides that they're going to be putting in there have half-lives that are in the thousands and millions of years. Therefore, the technology is not going to support the long-term safety of the watershed. At the end of the day, the government will be responsible because it allowed for the permitting of this project to happen. I can't see a proponent having enough liability insurance to cover the fact that this project risks the drinking water supply of nine million people living in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
It's a very good question. When push comes to shove, at the end of the day when there's nobody to be held liable, that pressure will again be put on the government of the day.