Mr. Minister, one of the laws of ecology is that you can't do only one thing. So if we assume that there are no small nuclear accidents, they're either catastrophic or not, which is really the purpose of insurance for catastrophe—we would conclude that it would either be some form of airborne, or at least something international in scope as a distinct possibility, which means that we could have contamination not only of the air but going into the ocean or other land masses.
When we talk about the $650 million limitation, it's quite possible that the lawsuits may come from people, for instance, in Spain, Portugal, or the United States who feel their fishing entitlements have been jeopardized, or from people who feel that their ability to breathe—Iceland, for instance—and those types of things.... Something like that could occur.
So I'm questioning the $650 million as a limitation, bearing in mind two factors: one, the size of it, which you have already alluded to, of course; and two, general inflation, which would make us come back to review it.
Would you not build into that some form of standardized changes to account for inflation, history, time, chronological progress, and the impact of what may happen in international scope?