I think you need to distinguish between the result and the underlying principle. In one regard, it addresses many of the concerns that may underlie the motion you introduced, in ensuring that individuals who took advantage of the deferral measure were not financially disadvantaged as a result of doing so.
I guess in another regard it's quite different, because it's consistent with the existing principle on which we tax employee stock options, whereas what you were proposing in the motion was to provide a full offset, so that an individual would be able to apply any capital loss on the security against employment income.
Our concern with that is that it would provide an advantage to individuals who had acquired shares through the exercise of options, relative to the large population of other shareholders who had acquired their shares using after-tax income.
So in summary, my answer is yes and no.