That's a good question. Before I answer that, I'd just like to address Mr. Bains' question about the scope of Bill C-20. The scope of damages has been expanded, and that's a change that I welcome. The expansion is not in the magnitude but simply in the range of types of damage that would be addressed. I believe the current scope is a better match with what we know about the long-term consequences.
In regard to your question about the basis for the $650 million liability cap, Mr. Hénault spoke to that issue, as I said, at a conference in Toronto in October. He said it comes from a balance of considerations, one of which is that it addresses what he terms “foreseeable” accidents, which as I explained is a term of art meaning design-basis accidents, accidents that plants are designed to withstand. Experience and a very large body of technical literature show that there is actually a universe of accidents well beyond the design basis that are indeed entirely foreseeable, because two major events of this kind have occurred.
Insurance against an industrial accident surely has to accommodate events that are foreseeable in the sense that they have occurred and in the sense that technical analysis shows they could occur again.
In the chemical industry, for example, the Bhopal accident is a historical event. It was beyond the design basis, and yet it's part of a reality. If one were insuring a chemical plant, one would have to consider a Bhopal-type event.
The $650 million limit does not consider events that are foreseeable and that indeed have occurred.