Yes, this is something that was addressed at great length during the drafting process. It is our view that this is not at all ambiguous. I know we've skipped over clause 2, but if we start at the definition of a nuclear incident,
“nuclear incident“ means an occurrence or a series of occurrences having the same origin that causes damage for which an operator is liable under this act.
It says that the operator is liable for things that the act says the operator is liable for. Compensable damage is detailed in clauses 13 through to 20 under the heading “Compensable Damage”, “Dommages indemnisables”. The Gowling counsel is absolutely correct at common law. If you go to the courts, you might not always be certain what damage means. What we have done in this statute is everything in our power to clarify exactly what we mean by damage.
Every time you see a reference to the term “nuclear incident”, and it's mentioned throughout the act, it ties in the notion of damage for which an operator is liable under this act, which takes us back to clauses 13 to 20.