Just by way of comment, the reason I asked that question is that I know where the power resides, having been in cabinet and having been on the Hill awhile. It is with Finance. Quite often Finance tends to foster and train people and place juniors and others from the finance department into all kinds of other departments, and they tend to control a lot of stuff through their little tentacles. I know that's where it is, and I just wanted to get that sense.
I want to go to Dr. Young for a moment.
One of the things we're grappling with here, Dr. Young, is this. We've been talking about gender analysis—and actually Dr. Good got to the point of it, that it's been done after the fact. And yet in the last two budgets we have $1,200 going to families—it's supposed to be universal child care—which of course we know is not benefiting the majority of women. The work income supplement is structured in such a strange way that some low-income women don't get it. We know where income splitting for seniors has been sitting: it's primarily with the well-off seniors. Now, in the last budget, we have a $5,000 tax-free saving, which again is going to benefit those who have money to put away.
It seems that irrespective of what is being said.... Tell me if I'm wrong here. Is my mind reading this totally wrong, that despite what is being said now about analyzing, the analysis is not being done prior and therefore is not affecting policy?