Okay, that's helpful. The reason I'm trying to understand this is that in certain aspects of law, this whole bill is taking a special case. These types of limited liabilities don't happen with other industries. In terms of environmental damage, there's no special case given to nuclear in the event of an accident. The only special aspect of it is the liability limit that gets hit, which brings me to my next question.
We talked previously in clause 16--I used the word “triage”, I don't think you did--in terms of not allowing folks within the industry to seek compensation. The government wanted more compensation to be available to victims outside the facility. We got into the discussion as to whether workers could be compensated. Is there any level of priority given between the environment and other aspects of compensation in terms of economics? You said that the government's intention in the $650 million limit was to get the most money they could out into the hands of those most immediately affected by health, psychological...and income. We're now talking about the environment. Do they all sit on the same tiered level and the government has to wade its way through to find the $650 million most appropriately given over?