But it is quite confusing when you read the wording in the bill in section 30(2)(c) is being replaced with this: "that, if the particular property or characteristic is present in both the person's employment tasks or environment and non-employment activities or environment, it is more likely that the person's personal injury was caused as a result of the employment tasks or environment rather than the non-employment activities or environment." And I guess that's spoken in legalese, and maybe my legal colleagues will be able to interpret it a bit better. But the other one that is relevant to that is (2A): "even if it is established that a claimant's personal injury was caused in the circumstances described in subsection (2), the Corporation may decline the claim if the Corporation establishes that the risk of suffering the personal injury is not significantly greater for persons who—(a) perform the employment task than it is for persons who do not perform it; or (b) are employed in that type of environment than it is for persons who are not." So if they can work their way around the meaning of those clauses, I hope that there is some advantage to our firefighters because they are a very important part of our volunteer service and our paid firefighting force, and I pay tribute to them, tonight. 