The first piece that we have in place is an arm's-length regulator. I think that's very important and we should not do anything to jeopardize the independence of that arm's-length regulator.
The CNSC has been involved since 2014 with the International Atomic Energy Agency's SMR working group working through issues around regulation.
My concern with CNSC is they quite rightly don't see it as their role to take part in that process of engagement on behalf of a design or a use or whatever it may be, so we have to ask where the engagement is going to come from that will at least hear, if not address, the concerns that the public may have. I think it's unfortunate that the battle over the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and its subsequent amendments has raged in the way that it has, because it has tended to take a very narrow definition of evidence that is to be taken into account in an assessment.
If we don't want to reopen that question, it would help if we had some other kind of forum that could discuss that kind of question. Something we discovered in Saskatchewan when we tried to do this with the uranium development committee, again, was this need people have for information they can trust and someone who will answer their questions.