If I may, I will answer in English.
We haven't suggested that $1 billion is the limit of a spill in Canada. We've suggested that $1 billion in absolute liability is a reasonable limit that establishes what we think companies should demonstrate they have the ability to have and that they would be liable without fault or negligence.
Certainly there's the possibility of an incident being more than $1 billion. Companies would be completely liable for those incidents when at fault or negligent. That's an unlimited amount.
We didn't try to, if you will, establish an amount that would capture any and all possibilities. We established an amount that we believed was reasoned for the context.
I think it's important to underline the difference between $1 billion in absolute liability and unlimited liability. Companies are subject to unlimited liability. Proving fault or negligence would be, I believe, although I'm not a lawyer, fairly straightforward. If a platform in the middle of the ocean is producing oil, somebody is at fault if there's a spill. Determining who is really the question. That's something that would be pursued in the courts.
However, in the example that's been used around the world, the Gulf of Mexico incident, as the big incident in which you would expect there'd be a great problem, the company accepted responsibility before it ever being proven. The company then pursued all of its partners and all of its subcontractors in a way in which the companies organized themselves to fight about who was responsible for what percentage of the liability.
Who pays was never at question. It was British Petroleum who paid in that instance. The examples that we've seen in other jurisdictions like Canada around the world have proven the same thing. The companies have accepted the responsibility and paid for the damages, whether they were $1 million, $100 million, or, as in the incident in the Gulf of Mexico, several billion.
You also asked a question about the polluter pays principle. The principle exists in our legal system. It is important to stress the significance of the principle in terms of company liability in the wake of an accident. We included that aspect in this legislation in order to highlight the importance of the fact that companies are liable if there is an accident. So it has to be in the act.
At federal level, other legislation includes the principle. We will see whether including the principle will be accepted in order to underline its importance. But the principle exists in our system, for sure. We were establishing a context for it that is a little more visible and thereby emphasizing its importance.