Let me answer that question directly first. The crisis was real, based on the assessment of the experts and our expert advisory group. These are nuclear medicine professionals and oncologists and cardiac specialists.
At the point at which Parliament passed the bill, our supply in Canada was already down by 65% and we were reaching the point at which mere inconvenience was tipping over into life or death situations. This is very serious. It was recognized as serious at the time by Parliament.
I can tell you none of that is fabricated. It doesn't come from me; it comes from the experts in the field, the people I rely on. I go to the field. I respect my colleagues I work with in the public service, but they, quite rightly, assisted me in going right down into the field, at the hospital level, at the clinic level, hearing from the experts. That's the first point I would make.
The second point I would make is to categorically reject the accusation that somehow we were trying to avoid foreign suppliers. We contacted foreign suppliers. A minister doesn't just get on the phone on a Saturday morning to phone the president of a rival of AECL in Paris. You don't do that if you're trying to discourage alternative supply. You're looking for alternative supply. That's exactly what I did and that's exactly what officials in Natural Resources Canada and Health Canada, working together, did.
So that is false. It's just not the way it happened. I am quite convinced that there was no stone left unturned by our departments, by the Government of Canada, by all those involved, to seek the best way to resume supply.