I think you were listening when I asked the previous panel about the five-year limitation. I had expressed concern about what I really thought was a reduction in the number of job opportunities because they're cutting back in the public service. I think 27,000 was the last number I heard; it could be more. Frankly, the manifestation of people's problems could occur after a five-year period, not having manifested before that, in which case I'm told they're entitled to regulatory but not statutory priority.
Now I'm reading something here that gives me even more concern, unless I'm reading this wrong. It says that it's retroactive to April 1, 2012. Looking at it, that means they could already have been within one of those five-year periods back in 2012. It might be their second five-year period. Let's say they've already been released for medical reasons before that, they've recovered, and they might be in their second five-year period in 2012, which leaves them only a couple of years. I may be reading that wrong and you can correct that, but it does cause me concern. But why five years? Why not just say “you assumed unlimited liability for us”?
It's unlimited, which is more than most around this table, although there are some at this table who have served and have assumed unlimited liability, Laurie.
Why five years? It sounds arbitrary to me.