Natural Resources committee  I can't remember exactly.

Natural Resources committee  No, I think the $650 million limit existed as well in a predecessor to this bill, which was Bill C-5. It wasn't updated prior to the introduction.

Natural Resources committee  Yes.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, that's correct.

Natural Resources committee  I think the liability limits are well represented internationally in terms of the international conventions. The limit is $300 million SDRs, which is somewhere around $500 million Canadian. I think it has stood the test of time.

Natural Resources committee  That's basically the philosophy, when we look at the foreseeable accident: that the likelihood of a catastrophic, very serious accident in which we'd lose containment is so unrealistic that we don't set the limit on that basis.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I think the CNSC... I think you'd really have to speak to someone from the CNSC, but I think in their analysis and their safety analysis and their regulatory reviews they regulate to avoid severe nuclear accidents.

Natural Resources committee  Yes. It is unforeseeable, so it would be inappropriate to set a limit on the operator based on something that is extremely unlikely. The legislation addresses any kind of eventuality. It's just that the liability limit of the operator was set, and then we did the study to evaluate the impact of a foreseeable incident and how it relates to....

Natural Resources committee  Yes, they do work in the industry. They were recommended by the CNSC.

Natural Resources committee  Not Natural Resources Canada, but the CNSC says that.

Natural Resources committee  The act is meant to address severe accidents. It's meant to address every type of accident. In terms of the liability limit, however, we were seeing how the liability limit that had been recommended compared to what would be the impacts of a foreseeable nuclear incident, a design-basis incident.

Natural Resources committee  That's correct.

Natural Resources committee  Well, the act addresses any form of accident, but the purpose of the study was to define how the impact of a likely or a foreseeable incident would stack up against the limit we had identified. It was considered inappropriate to be setting a limit on the operator liability that would address an incident that was quite unlikely, unforeseeable.

Natural Resources committee  You're right, but we didn't think it was appropriate to set a liability limit at the most unforeseen, catastrophic loss that could happen. That's not where you set the liability limit; you set the liability limit on an incident that would be foreseeable, as opposed to truly unlikely.

Natural Resources committee  Well, you choose an insurance level that you contemplate would address the likely risks. You don't choose a level of insurance that would include any foreseeable risk happening, regardless of how likely that risk is.