The reason I'm bringing it up is that the Auditor General says in her paragraph, which Mr. Lake identified, that although the purpose of the facility remains the same throughout the project, the security may only be considered fairly later.
I want to associate that with the letter Mr. Fonberg sent to the chair of the committee in March in which he says that, for example, approximately $515,000 was spent acquiring, installing, and calibrating special monitoring equipment to mitigate against potential security compromise. And then there's an $84,000 annual recurring cost. These costs have been borne and are continuing to be borne because the facility was not declared, at the outset, to have security requirements. Correct?