Okay, but expert advice has been given today that there have been shortcomings with respect to the other technologies when there is an interface with a medical prognosis. So there is no single solution, but there is the strategic combination of solutions, one of which is the role that NRU has played in terms of producing medical isotopes, the goal of which was for the MAPLE reactors to produce medical isotopes that were of a generic and universal application.
My concern, and I wonder if it would be your concern, is that if you listen to Mr. MacDiarmid, who was here just previously, there is no absence of bias with respect to Atomic Energy of Canada. They have completely taken off the table, for example, the possibility of reactivating the MAPLE reactors. If there is that kind of disposition, what kind of credibility can the Canadian people have in the strategy that you've also indicated, about the fast-tracking of the McMaster capabilities and its reactor? And I think UBC similarly has a capability. What trust can Canadians have that the expert panel's decisions will be listened to if it should come out and say, “Here are the strategic parts, and it is in the Canadian interest, medical and economic, for these recommendations to be accepted”?