Yes. I was getting to your point where you asked about the increase for a shipowner. Because there are two parties, we have to look at which party actually is taking the increase.
On slide number 9, when I look at the international convention we would be ratifying, that blue section represents only one party. It is the cargo owner who is actually going to deal with this change more than the shipowner. In terms of the shipowner, the new legislation before you is not changing anything. The brunt of the change is allocated to the cargo owner, by virtue of the international regime.
Is the amount sufficient to deal with an Exxon Valdez in the future? Well, this change you're looking at is a result of major incidents that have occurred in Europe over the last few years. The international community reacted and adopted this new protocol. It is sufficient to deal with some of the massive cases that have been experienced in Europe recently.
I think the Exxon Valdez stands on its own. It's a very unique case, perhaps largely because of the the way U.S. courts deal with claims and the way they dealt with that particular claim. I should leave it to lawyers, but I know enough that some of the amounts involved were punitive damages, which are not normally part of any settlement in Canadian courts.
As long as an Exxon Valdez happened in Canada and it was handled by Canadian courts, the answer to my question would be, yes, the amount is sufficient.