Natural Resources committee  Thank you. Studies by the Canadian nuclear industry show that there is a substantial risk of on-site damage, which may or may not be accompanied by off-site damage. I have not been able to determine any mechanism for insurance coverage for the risk of on-site damage in Canada. I

Natural Resources committee  There is also a comment I'd like to make very briefly about something said by the gentleman from the CNSC, if I may. He used the words “junk science”—

Natural Resources committee  The gentleman from CNSC used the phrase “junk science”. Whether he knows it or not, he was referring to a study I mentioned performed by Defence Research and Development Canada, and to the best of my recollection, it was done by the Pacific Northwest Laboratories of the United St

Natural Resources committee  That is correct. I attribute a cost in cents per kilowatt hour to the implied subsidy to nuclear-generated electricity in Canada. That calculation is complex and involves a number of assumptions, as I state in the report. However, my assumptions are in alignment with those of nuc

Natural Resources committee  Okay. I do have one--it does pertain to Mr. Bains' question.

Natural Resources committee  That's a good question. Before I answer that, I'd just like to address Mr. Bains' question about the scope of Bill C-20. The scope of damages has been expanded, and that's a change that I welcome. The expansion is not in the magnitude but simply in the range of types of damage th

Natural Resources committee  Well, yes--

Natural Resources committee  Thank you. My name is Gordon Thompson. I'm the executive director of the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I am a research professor at Clark University in Massachusetts. I've been working on nuclear safety and security issues for about 30

Natural Resources committee  Okay.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you.