When we focused on the multi-purpose research reactor, as I said at the beginning, it really talks to the broader policy issues of where Canada's emphasis is from a research point of view, from a commercial development point of view, and from that of job creation. If a major focus remains on nuclear, then it makes absolute sense to have integrated isotope production. It's an area of expertise for us. It would give regional balance in North America—and the reactor base production is the only proven technology we have today.
It's also about the global business model. One of the reasons for the high-level working group and for others is that the source of the molybdenum is government-owned reactors operating on essentially the same business model. Then the private supply chain takes over at different points, but the central piece is typically a government-owned research reactor with a multi-purpose approach.
If that policy question is answered in the affirmative, such that we want to be in this area, it makes absolute sense to use that as a platform for isotope production and the commercial arrangements that follow. If that decision isn't taken, there is still great interest from a Canadian point of view in the research platforms in accelerator technology, both linear accelerators and cyclotrons that could create surge capacity and redundancy to help protect Canadians and North Americans from any shortfall in that global supply chain, particularly given that it's been described as fragile. It is likely to remain fragile until major fixes to several reactors come into place.