I will endeavour to do so, Mr. Chair.
I would just like to say, in terms of this boneheadedness issue, that we also were recommended to do this when I was the Minister of Revenue and the chair of the Expenditure Review Committee. We rejected it for reasons that all of you have very ably explained. So I think that your collective testimony gives a really strong case for the government to capitulate on this decision, whether it's administered privately or under the status quo.
My question would be to the Conference Board, a neutral body. The point was made that this could be seen as removal of the export status of the tourism industry. I think not all Canadians understand that, but it is an export industry. Would that be a fair way to characterize this action?