I think I'm beginning to see where some of the point of disagreement is, and it's about the interpretation of section 9 in the CNSC. I'll just give you some idea of where some of the government members--maybe not all--are coming from.
This is part of your mandate. In subparagraph 9(a)(i) of the legislation it says to “prevent unreasonable risk, to the environment and to the health and safety of persons, associated with that development, production, possession or use”. Looking through the act, nowhere does it specifically exclude being concerned about cancer patients and their treatments. As a legislator, I look at that and see that it's a risk to people when they don't get their medicine, so that's roughly where we're coming from.
I want to ask you also--