Natural Resources committee  The United States liability amount is made up of two tiers. The first tier is the insurance tier, under which operators are required to carry...I believe it's roughly $300 million Canadian, so an insurance tier similar to the $650 million we would require. It's roughly $300 million Canadian.

Natural Resources committee  Oh yes, there is.

Natural Resources committee  It's $9 billion. It's the individual operators, $300 million, plus the benefit of the industry pool, which, when accumulated, brings the total available compensation to roughly $9 billion.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I would say that's accurate. Each individual operator has a fixed amount that they are responsible to secure financially. That amount is based on insurance and an additional tier for their individual reactor.

Natural Resources committee  I believe it was last summer. It was first introduced as Bill C-63, I believe, in June, and it has been reintroduced as Bill C-5.

Natural Resources committee  In our discussions, the insurers have not expressed that our $650 million proposal is out of line today and that they would be able to provide that capacity to us.

Natural Resources committee  I don't know.... I think that's arguable. They indicated to us at the outset that roughly $850 million was available. I know a number of European countries now seeking to insure over $1 billion of private insurance are finding it very difficult to do so. In fact, they aren't able to bring their legislation into force because of this fact.

Natural Resources committee  Certainly. The $650 million was based on a number of factors. You mentioned “international experience”, and we looked at the current amounts in the international conventions that govern this area, notably the Paris Convention and the Vienna Convention. Both of those conventions require 300 million SDRs, and I think the equivalent today is around $500 million.

Natural Resources committee  If there was damage to property, certainly, that damage would be compensated for. We're talking about damage to the environment here, for example, perhaps to provincial or national parks, and so on. Our view was that it would be left to a competent authority to determine the extent of the damage and whether that damage had to be mitigated or remediated.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. The concern about leaving the clause open-ended was that some could put forward any kind of proposal to remediate environmental damage when perhaps it was a question of degrees and might be something that a competent authority, such as a ministry of the environment, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, etc., would not require.

Natural Resources committee  Our view is that there really is not much difference between the use of the term “may” or “shall” in the clause.

Natural Resources committee  I think certainly, as I mentioned, the consideration of whether it would be worthwhile for us to have other reciprocity agreements or agreements of that nature is something that we would be looking at, following our consideration of this new legislation. It's our intent to look at the need for reciprocity agreements with other countries or perhaps look into joining international conventions in this area.

Natural Resources committee  I think we are more concerned with getting our own legislation in place, getting the appropriate insurance and compensation regime in place domestically, and ensuring that potential Canadian victims, in the unlikely event of an incident, were addressed, or anyone in Canada. Actually, the legislation doesn't discriminate between nationalities, and I think, given our proximity to the United States, of course, that was our most important consideration in terms of foreign exposure.

Natural Resources committee  It would apply, for example, to an installation on the border or that has the possibility of causing damage in the United States. I believe the reciprocity agreement was entered into back in 1976 or thereabouts. Basically it ensured that U.S. victims would have access to the Canadian nuclear liability scheme, because otherwise they would not have access to this scheme.