The training tries to make people think about what the implications are that could result from any measure. So whenever any measure is going forward, the analysts are trained to think about what the implications could be.
Let's say we had a measure that was very directed at a small business in the scientific and research type of analysis or businesses that are health oriented, then in some ways you could try to determine.... Analysts are supposed to be critical and look at all the different aspects and ask if the employment in those areas is greater in a specific area relative...or if there are more women employed in this area than there are men. And in that sense, if there's a measure that's more targeted in the corporate area, then there could be gender-based analysis, and the analysts and managers are trained to take that into consideration.
The analysts are trained to look at all measures critically from a gender perspective, from an environmental perspective. All those perspectives are supposed to be taken into account. So these two in particular are not conducive to gender-type analysis. It's a transfer to the province, and one of them is just a simplification measure. It just reduces the compliance burden. So those aren't conducive.
If you reduce the corporate tax base, reduce the corporate tax rate across the board, that approaches more of a macro policy. It's too broad. It's too difficult to analyze from a gender perspective. But as you get more specific, more targeted, analysts and managers are trained to look at that and see if there are any gender differences in the measure itself.