Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a series of questions and a couple of comments. In your document today entitled “Gender Analysis of Budget 2006 Tax Policy Changes”, there's a statement that says the taxes were reduced from 16% to 15.5%, which in fact is inaccurate. The taxes were down at 15% by then; they were increased in that budget to 15.5%. I in fact have in my office a Revenue Canada return form for income taxes that shows 15%, and it was increased.
Then on the personal exemption again you show an increase, although in fact that budget lowered it by $400. That's just an accurate situation; I think it's important for us to get the correct information when we have information.
The other part is that, Ms. Levonian, you said earlier that getting data was a problem sometimes. We've had a lot of witnesses here tell us that the segregated data is in fact available, that Statistics Canada has a lot, that the question of data is not a good reason to not do a proper GBA.
Now I'm going to ask you a couple of questions. When I ask them, take into consideration whether or not we've taken into consideration all of the elements of women—immigrant, lone parent, rural, and what have you.
You say that the $1,200 benefits all people. It may benefit a single mom by $50 to $60 a month, but that does not provide child care. We call it a universal child care program. It might be a minor income support, but it doesn't provide child care.
I want to know this: was there a proper GBA done from the perspective of actually providing women, especially low-income women, with child care, and of how that $1,200 actually delivers it?
If you could do that quickly, please, I want to come back to pension splitting and I need to discuss it.