Natural Resources committee  Linguistically, it doesn't come out exactly the same in French, but the reason “may” was chosen in English is because we say that no loss is compensable except in accordance with the act. So then we come along in clauses 13 to 20 and say these things “may” be compensable. It is “

Natural Resources committee  Linguistically, the two versions come down to the same thing. It means that it is permitted for these types of damage to be compensated, and in both versions, obviously, the chain of causation would have to be proven. So linguistically it comes to the same thing.

Natural Resources committee  Certainly, and I could provide the committee with that information.

Natural Resources committee  I would just simply say that the words were carefully chosen by the drafters. The word “may” was chosen again in the sense that it “may” be compensated. Unless we had said so right here, there would be no possibility of compensation. It allows the compensation; it permits.

Natural Resources committee  Generally, throughout clauses 13 to 20, the word “may” has been chosen. That is the choice of words throughout.

Natural Resources committee  Just to clarify, the word “may” is used because one would have to prove causation, that in fact the psychological damage resulted as a result of other loss. So “may” is used in the sense that it would have to be proved to the court that the facts existed.

Natural Resources committee  Legally, the two versions are identical, and they were compared. The effect of the English and French versions is the same. But it is correct. As you say, it simply says that "s'il découle de telle ou de telle situation, le préjudice est indemnisable." In English, the fact that

Natural Resources committee  Correct. It means they will be compensated if these facts are proven.

Natural Resources committee  "Incident nucléaire" no longer exists in the French text.

Natural Resources committee  It is "accident nucléaire".