Darn. No more?
I think this conversation will continue. I do need to... The last question—I'll start there—is a new question to me. I don't actually have information on it, so we'll have to deal with that later.
But I do need to state again that some of the assumptions really are wrong. The criteria did not change. If we were to build a facility in Canada, our expectation was that it would be not-for-profit. But the generation of this was not the issue of having a not-for-profit. The generation at the time was that it was lack of capacity; that was the issue. Then what the criteria would look like for a plant in Canada was outlined—I read that to you earlier—and the criteria were not met.
I don't know who said it, or where it was said, or to whom it was said, but it was wrong. No one won. I've seen the reviews; I've seen the original proposals. There was one that had potential—that's how it was put, that it had “potential”—but still had a lot of work to do, so it wasn't there. It did not cross the bar to where it would be acceptable for funding. It's not that the criteria changed, it's that nobody crossed the bar.
Looking forward, it really was again the Gates study that identified the capacity. The world had changed. So the terms of the capacity out there...that identifies capacity that sometimes research may not be aware of. One of the things the Gates Foundation and we are interested in is to match researchers with the capacity out there, to have those things addressed, obviously.
Finally, if any of the applicants still have questions—there have been conversations, discussions, and that will continue—it's really important, if they're not satisfied with the answer, that they ask the question, because we're being quite transparent about their proposals and what the issues are. It's unfortunate that none of them crossed the bar. It is fortunate that in Canada we will have international access to new capacity for trial lots, and now we can use that resource for something that will be value-added.
Thank you.