Natural Resources committee  I have said on many occasions that I am not aware of any industry in the world that is more heavily regulated, with any higher safety norms, with any more extensive training and commitment to safety and the protection of persons and property than the nuclear operators insurance environment.

Natural Resources committee  As is demonstrated by the indications of premium multiples I provided, yes. The new limit equates to 13.3 times the $75 million, so it's $650 million. Our estimated range of how much it will cost is somewhere between five and eight times. As an example, and I believe Chairman Tonks indicated this in a previous meeting, for a person who has $1 million coverage on his automobile and it costs x number of dollars, if he increases to $2 million liability, it's not twice as expensive, it's a multiple thereof.

Natural Resources committee  Are we capable of providing that level of insurance coverage? Yes, as I said earlier, barring any unforeseen circumstances, our research has shown that in conjunction with two other major pools we partner with--the British pool, Nuclear Risk Insurers, and the U.S. pool, American Nuclear Insurers--we can muster capacity up to the tune of approximately $1 billion.

Natural Resources committee  I'd like to cast my response in the context of the insured limit. I do not necessarily agree with the witness from Sweden. At $650 million Canadian, we are well positioned in comparison with other jurisdictions. I'd like to share with you and place in context some of these other limits of liability.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Regan. NIAC was appointed as an approved insurer many, many years ago with respect to the liability coverage. As I mentioned earlier in my comments, every insurer, as a member of NIAC, and other nuclear insuring pools meet the stringent financial requirements of their insurance regulators.

Natural Resources committee  I'll defer to Mr. John Walker, if I may.

Natural Resources committee  If I may, Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of the World Trade Centre attack, the availability of insurance coverage for terrorism simply evaporated. It was no longer available. Since then, in the absence of any significant terrorism act involving nuclear facilities, certainly, the market appetite has come back and we are in a position to provide a limited amount of terrorism coverage.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dermot Murphy. I manage the Nuclear Insurance Association of Canada, also known as NIAC. As Chairman Tonks pointed out, I'm joined today by Colleen DeMerchant, the assistant manager, and John Walker, of Walker Sorensen, our legal counsel. As advised when last we met with the committee, NIAC was established in 1958 in response to the need to provide adequate insurance coverage arising from the peaceful development of nuclear power in Canada.

Natural Resources committee  I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I don't fully understand the question.

Natural Resources committee  I think I understand, and I apologize. If I understand the question correctly, it is about the extent to which coverage exists in regular insurance policies--home owners, commercial buildings, and so on. Virtually every single insurance policy has a nuclear exclusion. This allows insurance companies to dedicate their available capacity for nuclear liability to the operator's policy through NIAC.

Natural Resources committee  Mr. Tonks, Mr. Chairman, I won't propose to answer the core of your question, because I don't believe I'm fully qualified to comment about the combination of both. I would, however, go back to a comment you made as being attributable to the industry and expressing comment that their premiums in this country were high or higher.

Natural Resources committee  In the U.S., the nuclear power plant operators are required under their legislation to purchase nuclear liability to the level of the $300-million limit. Over and above that, in the case of an incident, there is in effect an unfunded premium retrospective program in place that will equate to approximately $10 billion—$9.67 billion—there.

Natural Resources committee  It's really a matter of government policy, sir. We would suggest that in moving from $75 million to $650 million by way of insurance, or a combination of insurance and financial instruments, we are much further along. We are strengthened by the protection that would be there. As I said, it's a matter of government policy as to what they decide to do in the area in excess of $650 million.

Natural Resources committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to make a comment concerning the capacity of $650 million. Capacity is a result of supply and demand. It is also a result of experience, and in the case of the unfortunate World Trade Center events of 9/11, capacity around the world shrunk quite quickly, so that if we had been contemplating $650 million limits shortly thereafter, it would have been a struggle--perhaps not impossible--to amass that.

Natural Resources committee  The present $75 million would eventually go to $650 million, which is an 8.6-fold increase. The premium commensurate with that would be somewhere in the region of four to six times the existing premium.