--directly affected, thank you--in the definitions that we've just seen, then I would assume that without subclause 16(2), the government, upon review of the bill, would have to alter the $650 million, simply because the bill would be opened up to damages to those who have also lost power. No?
Oh, I see; Mr. Regan said it would just be spread more thinly, but the courts don't work this way on this bill.
Let's say that with subclause 16(2) the claim came out to be $1 billion, and without subclause 16(2) the claim came out to be $2 billion; it wouldn't necessarily matter to the provider of nuclear energy, simply because their cutoff is $650 million no matter what. Could I be looking at subclause 16(2) as something that's meant to...?
You said that subclause 16(2) exists to be able to provide money more directly to people who are directly impacted. That's a priority over folks who are impacted through the loss of power when their business goes down and they lose money or something else happens. The reason for this section is then to say, if it weren't here.... The judge is not going to sit back and say that since we also have to compensate the people who lost power, we're going to give less money to you people who are physically ill or something. I don't think that's foreseen. The judges are going to compensate what they think is reasonable to people who are directly impacted.