I just want to make sure that we're all clear. I don't have an objection to (e) provided that the main study that we're doing here will be on the specifics of the motion that we have before us. I take the point that Mr. Cumming is making that we don't want to, I guess, water down the main motion. I think as long as we're all under the same impression here that the focus is going to be on (a) through (d), then part of (e) would happen anyway.
I think it will be interesting. There will be lots of subjects that will come up. There have already been books written about this, and how we can get back there is actually a pretty straightforward path. I don't even know how much we're going to get from witnesses for that. Are we going to get some historians or philosophers?
At any rate, I support the motion, but as long as it stays focused, I don't have a problem with the subamendment. I think it could offer some value because it's going to come out a little bit anyway. But we need to focus on the specifics here for all of our interests.