Yes, but that's after the fact, right? I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt but we only have five minutes.
All those things in terms of sentences are after the fact. We're hoping that will act as a deterrent, but it's not necessarily an upfront measure that will enhance preventive measures.
Let me go on to a couple of other things. Forgive me for being perhaps a bit cynical about some of the provisions in the bill, because as you said in response to some of my colleagues' questions, the NEB can report that a company is unresponsive. The Governor in Council will consider whether to act. The tribunal may be established, and money may be recovered from the industry. That's a whole lot of maybes, and some of us who came to this place in a very trusting frame of mind I think have lost that trust over the last few years. That's through no fault of yours, but the bill does leave considerable vagueness.
One of the questions I have is that in determining the pipelines that will be impacted by these new provisions, you're dealing predominantly with volumetrics, right? You talk about 250,000 barrels per day. Those are the pipelines that will be covered. Why did you choose to concentrate only on volumetrics? Why not, for example, look at the goods that are being transported and the relative levels of risk that those goods may present?