Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
My question will be pretty short.
If I understand correctly the worker benefit, Mr. Leblanc, the idea was to have this amount; to have, as you said, a longer phase-out; and to start the phase-out later. The purpose of it—correct me if I'm wrong—is that when you have people of the same income, one receiving benefits and the other one working, the people who are working at a certain level, the working poor, have some disadvantages, and it would be rational for them, rather than seeking work, to seek social benefits just because of the way in which our tax system, benefit system, and all ancillary things work in the whole process. It doesn't work in their favour.
So the idea of having the benefit, or the working income benefit, is that you're allowing them to make the rational choice to choose work. Of course, work has many advantages. There's the possibility of gaining greater income. It's an ennobling activity. It could lead to future growth and future opportunities.
Do I have that right?