Natural Resources committee  Thank you. What we're trying to exclude are damages to the actual site of the facility or the installation, such as the property damage, for example, of the operator. For example, if it's a nuclear reactor, we would not want to be paying for damage to the actual reactor itself or to the actual site.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, they do need to be included in the process. Any facility that has material that can have a nuclear reaction in it is covered, and the research reactors are included in that grouping, as are nuclear fuel waste facilities, fuel fabrication facilities, and uranium conversion facilities.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, self-insurance was considered to be one of the options for alternative financial security. Another one was a provincial guarantee, for example. We would eventually be providing guidelines on the types of alternative financial security that operators might be providing to cover their risks.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  It's a matter of regulations. The government is able to set a lower limit of insurance for smaller facilities such as the reactor that Mr. Tonks discussed. This makes the insurance less difficult for them.

Natural Resources committee  Certainly. Thank you very much. The issue is that under the existing legislation there was provision for what's known as an administrative means of dealing with claims in the event of an incident. That administrative system was known as the Nuclear Damage Claims Commission. The problem with the existing legislation, however, is that the system wasn't really elaborated on.

Natural Resources committee  Exactly. Under the new legislation, interim payments will be able to be made to victims prior to a complete assessment by the insurers. Those payments will be tracked and monitored so the $650 million limit is not exceeded. There is provision to ensure that victims in need get compensation quickly.

Natural Resources committee  We currently have a reciprocity agreement with the United States. As a result, if any incident in Canada caused damage in the United States, American victims would be able to come to Canada to have access to compensation under our legislation. Similarly, under the United States' legislation, the Price-Anderson Act, they would avail themselves to claims from Canadian victims in the event of a U.S. incident that resulted in such victims.

Natural Resources committee  I think Mr. Dupont covered this. Certainly the first tier of the American insurance is less than what Canadian companies would be carrying as their first tier of insurance. The question becomes what premiums are being paid by American operators versus Canadian operators? Second, what kinds of financial arrangements are in place to secure the second tier of funding that would be available in the event of an incident?