Natural Resources committee  In terms of terrorism, there is no test of negligence. What the legislation puts in place is that the operator is absolutely liable, so if there is an act of terrorism that causes nuclear damage, there is no question. The operator is liable and there is no need to suggest that he

Natural Resources committee  Probably, but I'm not sure. I'm not an expert on the premiums that insurers charge operators.

Natural Resources committee  No, we didn't. Basically all countries that provide a 30-year liability limit recognize that the insurers are unwilling to provide the compensation beyond 10 years and that public funds would have to be used to address the remaining period.

Natural Resources committee  No, there isn't.

Natural Resources committee  Following the events of September 11, 2001, insurers decided to withdraw their coverage of terrorist acts at all nuclear power stations. But they've gradually come back into that market and are starting to offer that coverage. Currently, Canadian insurers, NIAC, only cover 20% o

Natural Resources committee  I'd like to add that the 50% figure can be increased or reduced by regulation. It's not a fixed amount because it can be adjusted.

Natural Resources committee  Perhaps it's to get something stable and reliable. Insurance is an independent third party. Without other financial securities, there is always a possibility of risk. Insurance is something a little more concrete.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, there are a number of risks. First of all, there are the risks associated with small facilities--for example, Slowpoke reactors, etc.—where you would not anticipate that they could possibly create an incident amounting to $650 million just because of the size and the amount

Natural Resources committee  The minister has to approve all security, 100%. If it's 50%, he has to give his approval of the financial security.

Natural Resources committee  No. I don't like the words “guarantee a market for the insurers”. It's more to retain a separate amount intended for another independent part of the operators in order to secure the risks because the insurer maintains reserves for the purposes of the nuclear liability system.

Natural Resources committee  It would be possible for operators to negotiate a better premium with other insurers. However, under the bill, other insurers would have to obtain the minister's authorization in order to insure the operators.

Natural Resources committee  It's just an amount to insure a separate third of insurance or a security that is separate and independent of other means.

Natural Resources committee  In most countries there's one approved insurance pool. I think in the United States there are two. In most countries there is only one insurance pool. Under our current legislation, the Nuclear Liability Act, there is only one approved insurer, for historic reasons, to the Canadi

Natural Resources committee  I don't know what the premiums are that insurers charge in other countries, so I'm unable to comment on that. It's a commercial issue, and we don't look at the premiums.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, but the insurance is there to address all nuclear damage relating to a nuclear installation, be it minor, major, or catastrophic.