Thank you, Madam Chair.
In a document from you, Professor Lahey, which I read, you stated—and of course, I think Professor Philipps mentioned the same thing—that women essentially occupy an economic sphere separate from that of men in our society. I quite understand your description of why that would be. Professor Lahey--or maybe both of you--could you expand for us a little bit, just so we understand the underpinnings of all this and how we have to, in my view, deconstruct not only how taxation is structured and imposed, but also how we will have a field battle in dealing with some very inherently ingrained attitudes and behaviours that I think our society was structured on? I think it's going to be a difficult thing to do, but it should not be something that we don't do, obviously.
Professor Lahey--or probably both of you--could you just expand a little bit for us, because this is very important, the kind of work we're going to have to do? Regarding the culture you're talking about, Professor Lahey--the tax system having been structured along the lines of the nuclear family, with certain assumptions built in, the role a female would play, and the stereotypes that are deeply ingrained in that structure--could you, or both of you, expand on that and maybe give us some suggestions as to how we might begin to deconstruct that--because it's a major job--and where we might start with chunks of it?
I'll close by saying that you may want to comment on this final piece, which is on the taxation reversal that happened in 1987 when Mulroney was in power. It went from 6% to 17%, and that 17% was then on the lowest-income earners, most of whom were women. So we actually put the tax burden on the backs of most of the lowest-income Canadians. That might well have.... I'll just leave that to you. It's a bit of a mouthful, I know.