Thanks for the question.
The import of what we do as public servants is provide advice to the government. My job description is to support the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance, when he's putting together a budget, wants to make decisions on an informed basis. He talks to a lot of people in the country, but when he's looking at proposals or some options to put into a budget, he wants his department to do an analysis of it. So we do that analysis. The minister decides what he wants to put into his budget. We don't, but he does it on the basis of our analysis.
This gender-based analysis is a fairly recent initiative in governance, and we are accelerating our application of it. I would say that if you talk to people in Status of Women and elsewhere in government, you'll find we're doing a pretty good job of that. I'm proud of the work we're doing, but we have a long way to go yet.
I'm actually not aware of what happened in the 2006 budget vis-à-vis some of the credits you're talking about, but I can say that on this budget, where it's quantifiable, in particular on the tax side, we did give the minister advice about the impact of tax initiatives and initiatives for the budget on women. It was a gender-based assessment and in some cases a detailed analysis about the overall impact on women. That fed into his choices and his decision of what to put into his budget. And so it was an informed basis.
We also give a broader base of advice on the broader impact on the Canadian community, so obviously in terms of some of the training initiatives and the priorities for aboriginal training, that was flagged.
You referred to the Status of Women. Certainly we gave the minister our assessment that it was very positive. Based on gender-based assessment, you don't have to be a deep thinker to know that's going to help women in terms of the type of programming that's being supported--