Sure. The reason I ask is that you suggest that the government will cover reasonable costs in clause 17, but you don't know what those costs might be. Does the government not leave itself open to conflict with the courts? The public reads this and thinks all reasonable costs will be covered. When the public finds out the government didn't do any studies to determine what those costs might be in the event of a nuclear accident near Lake Ontario, is there not an opportunity for a judge to say that the entire limit-setting authority under this act contravenes itself in clause 17?
Ms. MacKenzie looks a little confused, so I want to be clear. You've said that the government will compensate reasonable costs for environmental damage. I've asked if you have gone out and studied what the costs might be. The government has said no, but it has set a limit further on in the act on what the total costs would be for everything. I don't understand how you can make the claim that you will compensate reasonable costs if, since you never looked at it, you don't know what the reasonable costs could be.