That's understood, but we don't know how deep the pockets are. I suppose that's what we're hearing in this. We know there's at least $650 million, but there may or may not be more. So we have the potential of this process going quite a bit longer, depending on whether Parliament hears the will of the chairperson or is paying enough attention to realize, “Goodness, $650 million is not going to do it; we're going to need more.”
I understand that if someone is seeking damages from some company and the judge determines that the company has only $1 million in total assets, that's probably the natural limit that they can go to. Their insurance isn't going to get them any more, so the judge fines somewhere in the range of $1 million, if that's the maximum he or she wants to give.
But on this one, there are two maximums. There's $650 million, but then there's this unknown question mark, depending on what Parliament decides. I just see an interplay between the pressure of the tribunal and the public pressure on Parliament being what actually ends up compensating folks, as opposed to some natural course and limit.
If Parliament simply decides that because it's a non-election year they're not going to compensate any more, then tough luck, and folks are out money that there might otherwise have been. It's something that the judge probably acknowledges and says, “You're probably owed more money, but the election isn't for three years, and you're not going to get any.”