Natural Resources committee  I'm just verifying again that the amendment being put forward, the proposed clause 26.1, refers to the total liabilities assumed under the act, which is the total liability limit times the number of insured installations, and anything else is not referred to in this proposed amen

Natural Resources committee  I just wanted to clarify that we're talking about the amendment proposing new clause 26.1. This amendment only speaks about the liabilities assumed under the act by the government, and that is whatever the liability limit is times the number of installations in the country. It'

Natural Resources committee  Just as a point of clarification, and my colleagues will correct me if I'm expressing this incorrectly, the total liabilities assumed under the act cannot exceed whatever the liability limit is in the act. There is no liability assumed under the act beyond the liability that is s

Natural Resources committee  Oh, no. This would be before a court of law. This is a trial, like—

Natural Resources committee  If you think of the Criminal Code, normally a summary conviction involves lesser fines, and so forth. You see that the fine here is not a small fine at all. What summary conviction entails is that the operator doesn't have the right to a judge-and-jury trial, but it's a judicia

Natural Resources committee  Yes. Go ahead.

Natural Resources committee  I have just one clarification. The tribunal determines what the damage is, as any judge would. The second determination is how much money there is. It's a two-step process.

Natural Resources committee  Just on David's point, that's correct. We did think about that. In any claim before any court, any private claim, the amount you can get depends on how deep the pockets are of the person you're claiming from.

Natural Resources committee  The limit here is $650 million, because that's all the legislation provides for. You're right, the scheme is a little bit different, because normally once you've awarded money, that's it; it's all over. We have provided for something a little special. We have allowed the tribun

Natural Resources committee  There are two different things. If a judge misapplies... I'll back up again. Just as in any court, there are general rules about how the judge applies the law. In this case, the law is this act and the regulations made under this act later on. That is a significant point of con

Natural Resources committee  Yes. You can't review the decision on the basis that you think you have a better idea, but you can review a decision on the basis that the judge hasn't applied the law properly.

Natural Resources committee  No. After the tribunal is established, what happens is that... We haven't quite got to it yet. Payments are made by the minister out of the nuclear liability reinsurance account. You have this centralized body, as opposed to various judges and various courts deciding individual

Natural Resources committee  Yes. The operator, under clause 61, would pay to Her Majesty the amount he owes. That goes into this special account, this separate account. That's the money that's set aside for victims. Then the tribunal awards money that's paid out of that account.

Natural Resources committee  Under clause 61, the operator pays. This is worked out mathematically. It pays the amount equal to the $650 million, less any amounts the operator already paid before the declaration was made and the total of all amounts paid by the minister under the act. So the minister demands

Natural Resources committee  Again we have left it to the good wisdom of the retired judges who are dealing with it. The qualifier is whether it's essential in the interests of justice to do so. An appeal is normally dealt with on the facts that have already been presented. But we have allowed here that perh