I didn't state an opinion on that per se.
If my memory serves, there has been a change since 2001 in European conventions regarding responsibility for terrorist attacks. I'd have to confirm that.
My point was that under the Nuclear lLability Act as proposed, nuclear operators would not be responsible for the economic costs of such an incident. My point was to say that if Canadians are then going to assume those impacts, we need a forum under which we can evaluate them and have a discussion of whether they're socially acceptable and of other methods we could use to mitigate that risk.
What I proposed was that an amendment or a change in regulation should be made under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to require terrorist incidents and the environmental impacts to be evaluated, because that is not the case now in Canada. What I noted is that in the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled that the NRC must require an evaluation of environmental impacts in licensing new facilities.
An example raised by Mr. Ouellet would be a terrorist attack at the dry storage site for waste, which right now is frankly not very well protected, because most of the facilities were built prior to September 11. In licensing a new facility in the United States, they've had to evaluate what those costs would be. That gives the public an understanding of what the hazard is and of whether it's socially acceptable. It also allows a forum for discussing what we could do to necessarily mitigate this environmental impact--do we make these buildings more robust?
That was what my comment was.