Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I hope our guests understand that we're not in a position to consider the advantages of one company's technology or expertise as opposed to another. As we go forward it's important for us to be very clear that we don't make those kinds of decisions in this committee. We certainly give people an opportunity to talk about what they're doing, but we're not here to advocate on behalf of one company or another.
I've had the opportunity to meet with both representatives, as well as with a number of others, over the last year and a half. I think what they're talking about in each case is significant. I also think it's important for us to recognize, for example, Mr. Luxton, that other companies would also be competitive or engaging in activity and research on IEDs. I can imagine the field must be very crowded right now with companies looking at the technical means of dealing with the impact of IEDs.
These are killer instruments in every jurisdiction where they're being used. Their impact is huge on civilian life in Pakistan and Afghanistan at the moment, as well in as a number of other countries where this kind of device is being used. They're very cheap, relatively easy to use, can be set off with a cellphone, and are widely available. I can imagine that the efforts to counter the impacts of these machines must be equally widespread throughout Europe, the United States, and North America.
Would that be a correct statement?