I think it's very timely, given the circumstances of the move to phase out coal. I think that if we only look at cost, first of all, then we're missing part of the dimension. Nuclear is a base load of power supply. It runs best when it's running full out all the time. It provides the constant, very reliable electricity that we're getting in our room right now. Other greenhouse-gas-free sources, such as wind and solar, are intermittent and provide very valuable power, but have a very different characteristic from base load.
Independent agents—and I used the International Energy Agency as an example—say you need both, and that trying to rely on one or the other is not the right approach.
I grew up in an era where the central planning of electricity supply was the norm, and people tried to get a balance between different types of electrical supply because that gave you the most reliable system. We're moving away from that for many good reasons, but the idea that you may need more than one type of electrical supply is still there. Based on that, I think there would be merit in a debate or a discussion between the nuclear industry and Saskatchewan, Alberta, and even Nova Scotia.