I would turn to what Nancy said. Take a look at “The Budget in Brief 2008” and what the major strokes are that the government itself says are the important characteristics of this budget.
The way you do this, Ms. Mathyssen, is simply in pointing out, for example, what Madam Grewal's question was. We have two programs here, post-secondary education and the services to veterans, which, combined, are roughly $400 million over the next few years. The tax-free savings account, on the other hand, is worth $900 million over the next five years and is estimated to cost the public treasury $3 billion.
I have a section in the report I've submitted to you, “Budget 2008: What’s In It For Women?”, that shows that the tax-free savings account will accrue primarily to those earning over $100,000, just because of its structure. It's worth $3 billion when it's fully implemented. It's a big price tag for that, and it goes primarily to those earning over $100,000.
What proportion of the Canadian taxpayers do you think are in the over-$100,000 group? I'll tell you: it's 7.5% of men and $2.5% of women. So 5% of your taxpayers are getting about 70% of this $3 billion a year. That's an expensive program for a small number of people who.... Again, as Ms. Lahey has pointed out, it turns the welfare concept on its head and gives the most to those who need it the least.
There is money there. When you do gendered analysis, it permits you to see where the money goes and whom it's benefiting. You see what is happening, what governments are doing and for whom, and then put a price tag next to it. You say, we're doing something for students: 57% of graduates are women and this is how much we're giving them; we're doing something for those who earn more than $100,000: this is how much is going to them and this is the proportion who are women.
It helps you actually say, “If these are your big-stroke initiatives”—and that's what I said, I didn't say every budgetary measure—“just tell us what it is that you think are the important things you're doing with this surplus”, because the surplus is huge, “and who benefits from them.”