This was called a life-or-death situation by the minister of the day. There was an inordinate amount of pressure to reopen this facility and override the safety concerns. That was what was presented to Parliament. They had an Auditor General's report in hand, pointing out the problems that the minister had seen some months before. I find it strange that the government seemed to be surprised and created a crisis that required your firing to get this back online. Fast forward 18 months—you've said nothing has happened and things got worse. There was no plan put in place. Suddenly the reactor is being branded as old and unreliable, whereas only a few months ago you were the problem.
They can't fire the new person doing your job, so they're going to fire the reactor this time. Where did this come from? These problems did not arrive overnight. They didn't arrive with your report and the decision not to submit another licence. I think $600 million was the figure the Auditor General said was needed to restore the Chalk River facility. Is that right?