The classical answer would be no. I guess there are countervailing arguments in the nuclear environment. We represent nuclear insurers, and we're trying to make a distinction between the limit of insurance and the outright limit of liability of the operator. I'm going to step outside the bounds of what we view as our area of expertise. You have to consider that in Canada, except for one operator, these are provincial government entities, or agencies of provincial governments. If you asked them to carry unlimited liability, you're simply making provincial governments, the people of the province that a reactor is in, bear that risk. You are not really shifting it from the public purse to a private purse. What would be the social utility of bankrupting one of these utilities with unlimited liability? We still need the electricity. If you make them liable for an unlimited amount and you bankrupt them, what have you achieved?
I want to close by saying that those are extemporaneous comments beyond our real scope.