Thank you.
I thank Mr. Anderson for his very wise and sage advice. We did look at the previous testimony of three and a half days.
In terms of the question about the economic loss incurred by a person, what does the bill imagine in clause 15 in terms of any cross-border disputes? Again, we're imagining contamination. I've heard what you've said about contamination being incurred only within site, but I can't see anywhere in this bill where it says that, where the liability regime imagined here will only happen within site.
So I, as a legislator, have to imagine some contamination going off-site. You talk about venting through the air, for example, and I only have Chalk River as the last current Canadian example of a reactor having a problem. It's vented through the air. It was also vented into the river--the Ottawa River, in fact. That's where some leaks happened. What happens with respect to the United States in particular with their citizens claiming some sort of compensation?