I appreciate that, and I think that's what we're trying to do with this bill, to at least acknowledge that it makes a difference, to some extent, in helping level the playing field.
I guess a more direct way to put the question is to ask who, under the present system, is more likely to benefit from a system that allows people to borrow $100,000? Do the Bob Raes or the Wajid Khans of the world fare better or worse than the Martha Hall Findlays of the world? Who manages to make their way through the system as it now exists? And do you not see, on that basis, the importance of at least supporting this bill as a step towards dealing with that situation?
I don't think we need a lot of data. We don't need a lot of study. We know that women are less economically well off than men. We know that it takes money to get into politics. So wouldn't it mean, by implication, that if we can reduce the financial barriers, then we can help women get into politics?