Again, in terms of replacement of the NRU, if we're talking about building a new research reactor, in rough numbers, that's $1 billion, and it is an investment for the next 50 to 60 years. That would be deserving of some time to make sure that you get it right. There are other supply alternatives when it comes to isotopes, but as regards a new research reactor, that is an important consideration.
Is it necessarily better than a self-standing Canadian kind of solution? We think so. The reason is that, whatever solution you will have, to have the world dependent on one supply chain when there cannot be inventory of any kind held for any reasonable period of time is not healthy. There has to be more distributed supply.
It is also somewhat uncharacteristic for the U.S., for example, to be the largest consumer in the world, have no indigenous production capability, and rely fully on its international partners. It is perfectly normal, and I think salutary, for the U.S. to look at its own production options.
Should Canada be a significant contributor to the world market in the long term? We certainly have skills, we certainly have capacities, and we have a history. What we have not had to date is a reasonable business model. Frankly, this has not been an attractive business for Atomic Energy of Canada. It may have been for some of the other parties in the supply chain. As I mentioned earlier, the real public policy imperative, number one, is to ensure that the needs of the health care system are met. If, as well, there could be commercial opportunities realized through the export of that capacity, the production in Canada and export, that's great. But the judgment is still out on that, and I think that's what we hope to hear as well from the panel.