Thank you very much.
To anyone listening at home, we know campus violence against women is endemic to the university and college atmosphere in Canada. I hope this particular case doesn't become about the impact the process may have on the alleged perpetrators. Don't forget the impact on the women who've been affected by this.
Turning to the questions earlier from my colleague Ms. Harder on the issue of the proposed tax changes, my understanding is essentially that our government does gender-based analysis on any piece of legislation. In terms of the income sprinkling test, GBA was applied, but because there was no legislation on passive investment, it hadn't been applied to that legislation. However, through the consultations, gender considerations were taken into account and that was reflected in some of the adjustments. For example, we'll let a business owner save up to $1 million before the passive investment piece affects them, to take care of the concerns that I actually heard on the trail as well when I did consultations, such as about maternity leave, taking care of a loved one, and so on. Is that a fair summary of what you were getting at?