Natural Resources committee  No. If, for example, the liability were entirely covered by the government by reinsurance, for example, if one could anticipate that there was a loss that the insurers would not cover and therefore it fell to the government to provide total coverage, then that would be the full exposure of the government at the $75 million level.

Natural Resources committee  No. What it values is damage that would not be covered by insurance. It doesn't value the plant, but it values a type of damage that's covered by the legislation but would not be covered by insurers under the policy and therefore would fall to the federal government.

Natural Resources committee  A nuclear incident, for example, that was associated with terrorism, I suppose, would be one.

Natural Resources committee  Personal injury that was not bodily injury, for example, psychological trauma: if you had a nuclear incident at a facility and the only damage that was experienced was personal injury, not bodily injury but psychological trauma. And if all the damage, $75 million, was associated with that damage, the federal government would have to pay that amount under the current reinsurance agreement.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  I believe that we looked at other legislation where fines were ordered against participants, particularly, I believe, in the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act. We looked at a host of acts, and that's where the dollar figure actually came from.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I think the $300,000 a day would be quite significant, but more importantly, without the coverage the operator would not be able to operate. The operator has to have the insurance as a condition of its operation.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, that's correct.

Natural Resources committee  I think Parliament would have a lot more information at that time to determine the extent of the damages and the costs of the damages.

Natural Resources committee  No, there is no separate limit. The limitation is within the act, and I believe we've already covered that in one of the previous clauses.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  This legislation limits the compensation of damage to that which takes place within Canada. If there were a reciprocating agreement with another country, as we have with the United States, then compensation could also be made to victims in that country.

Natural Resources committee  A clause very similar to this exists in the existing act. We understand that this is a concern expressed by the industry, that U.S. victims may sue in U.S. courts because the liability limit is quite low now. However, under this legislation we believe that the courts would consider the $650 million limit to be a significant increase from the $75 million and they may avail themselves of the opportunity to bring their claims to Canada.

Natural Resources committee  The accounting of the payments is done exactly to reflect that. The tribunal judge will make a decision as to how much compensation would be available. There would be a reduction based on the regulations provided, to reflect, for example, that a particular payment was being made at 50% of the dollar, and then there would be an amount paid out.