I hate to start with a disclaimer, but I guess it could be expected in the sense that there is a lot of political science and environmental factors to be considered here, and I won't profess to be an expert on those. But I think the way this has to be approached—and I think Mr. Martin put it eloquently—is that this committee has confidence that it has looked at the subjects and at the research. In reality, we have to evaluate it as accountants or auditors probably would and determine whether or not additional hearings would bring any added value.
Again, as an association, it's really hard to speak for all our members, but if we look at what's before us and the quality of that work, I think as an association we could support the view that there is enough information available to this committee at this time.