Yes. Sometimes it's easy for people to see the term “capitalization” and think that we're saying “a cap”. What we are saying is that initially the fund would be for $250 million. That's how we developed the amount of $1.65 and the number of years, based upon how much oil there was.
But the important part of this, Mr. Chair, is that this fund is not meant to be capped or cut off. It will cover all damages above the railway insurance in the event of a rail accident involving crude oil. Claims against the fund will not be limited. As I said, we picked $250 million to capitalize to, because that would actually give a substantial additional coverage for crude oil accidents, but it is a notional target.
Also, the bill does provide that a ministerial order can be used to suspend or reinstate a levy to ensure that the fund is at the appropriate level to accommodate liability in excess of insurance requirements. As well, if needed, while not holding excess capital unnecessarily—because you don't want a fund that can't be utilized necessarily—in the unlikely event that damages from an accident surpass both the insurance level and the amount in the fund, the government's CRF will back up the fund, but this is a loan, and it would be recouped through levies back to the shippers.