Maybe Mr. Regan has hit my point here. There's nothing in the bill that talks about exclusivity for the operator; it says that it's seeking to make operators liable in the event of a nuclear accident. That is the intent of the bill.
There was never any notion in the preamble--and we were trying to be careful in reading through this--that said “exclusively they are liable”, because if that were in fact the intent of the bill, then the Canadian government would also be excluded from that liability chain, which is not the intent. In the bill that we've read and in all of our testimony so far, there are only two that are being talked about. It was to make the operators liable, but never liable exclusively. That, we don't understand, because we have not done it in any other industry or in any other form of law.
I'm not a lawyer, so I understand that I'm on thin ice in terms of the legal precedent, but I just don't understand its incongruity. I don't see that exclusivity part as the intent of the bill. I guess that's what I'm asking about.
