Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you again for the conversation this afternoon. We're hitting some really fertile ground in terms of transitioning and transforming.
I want to go back to what you both, or one of you, described as the light-bulb conversations and how you pull men into the issue and get them invested. Madam St-Pierre, I think you mentioned in the beginning that this is a moral issue, that it should be about the right to serve in the Canadian Forces.
On other fronts, including the conversation about gender equality and its economic benefit, there's some research that we like to point to. The Royal Bank did some research saying that if we had pay equity tomorrow, we would have a global benefit in excess of $10 trillion U.S. When you say that to a bunch of investment bankers, all of a sudden the light bulb goes on, but that's not the right way to go at it. As you pointed out, this is instrumentalization.
Can those two streams move in parallel until we reach a breakthrough where men are engaged, and then move them over to the right-spaced paradigm? Should we never use the instrumental dialogue, or is there some other option? The fundamental starting point is that this is Canada, and this is 2019 now. This is a human rights question, in a way, and it should always be anchored as such, but to actually get the breakthroughs and the light bulbs, do we need to mobilize other avenues of starting the conversation?