Natural Resources committee  Mr. McCauley can give you the answer.

Natural Resources committee  I think the one thing that's clear is that the higher limit in Canada will provide for a more balanced position vis-à-vis the U.S. and therefore I think a greater sense that the Canadian industry and operators have the same type of responsibility and potential liability as exists in the United States.

Natural Resources committee  This is Mr. Dave McCauley, from Natural Resources Canada, who is the expert on the matter of the bill.

Natural Resources committee  The U.S. has two components—and Mr. McCauley may wish to add to this response. There is a limit on the liability of an operator in a range of $310 million. If damages exceed that amount, there can then be a call on the other reactors in the United States, up to an amount of $120 million per reactor.

Natural Resources committee  I would suggest it's difficult to say, Mr. Chair. The original limit per operator may be lower in the U.S. than in Canada, but then they also have a contingent obligation, if you wish, to contribute to indemnify in the case of any other accidents. So one would have to work out those two components and their relative probabilities versus the one number in Canada.

Natural Resources committee  The annual report put out by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, with numbers to March 31, 2009, cited a loss on their major projects—that's Point Lepreau and the other refurbishment projects—of $333 million. Those were the losses as of March 31, 2009, which took account of the situation at that time and re-estimated the revenues and cost for those projects to completion.

Natural Resources committee  Yes.

Natural Resources committee  No. That's because of the same considerations I mentioned earlier.

Natural Resources committee  No, because that was partly what we were trying to get from the financial advisers.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, I've seen a report.

Natural Resources committee  I've seen work from Rothschild.

Natural Resources committee  Yes, it does. There are some parts of the effort that could be done. For example, the management contract for Chalk River possibly could be done, under some conditions, under the current legislative framework, but there could not be a substantial sale of the assets of the commercial side of the business, for example.

Natural Resources committee  You say “diminishment of what AECL was”. I think you're correctly observing at this time that it is not participating in any of the new builds. So starting from where we are now, we have to be realistic about the prospects under the current structure. As a large measure of the exercise, I cited the three objectives, the third one of which is really to position the industry to be more present in those markets and to enhance that capacity.

Natural Resources committee  I think so.

Natural Resources committee  Again, I'd like to come back to the committee on that point. My understanding is that there was some export financing under the Canada Account. My understanding is that those funds were subsequently reimbursed. Therefore, it would not necessarily qualify as a subsidy. It was some financing provided by the Government of Canada.