There are two columns of calculations. We believe our calculation is a legitimate calculation on the basis of the time reporting system within DFAIT.
The recalculation by DFAIT was on the basis of a time allocation in the original approval of the fee. As Mr. Rigby has stated, there are some concerns as to whether the time reporting system is adequately capturing the time charges. Therefore, if those time charges were off, our calculation would be off. So the default was that we presented the second calculation as the one based on the original time study in 1993, and we believe in both cases they need to be looked at. The time study done in 1993 could be out of date, and the time reporting system may not be correct.
But in both cases, the point is there was a trend of surpluses on both calculations at least three years in a row, and the final year that brings it back into deficit is because of something that was unique, the one-time cost of Lebanon.
So I think the message is that there is an issue that needs to be looked at. Multiple aspects include looking at the time reporting system, perhaps doing another study of that, and finally, some consideration of whether they want to revisit entirely the basis of calculating the fee and the approval of the fee.