Yes, I'd like to just add a couple of points.
First of all, I know this has ended up being an exercise very heavily focused on taxes, not spending. I'm not too sure how that happened, but I would like to just emphasize that as somebody who compulsively monitors what everybody else is doing on gender analysis of tax law, Canada has now, with the work of this committee, sort of burst into the forefront internationally--because that is usually the last thing to get looked at. Part of what has happened here in Canada is that so much of what this government and the government before it had been doing was sort of tied into or interwoven with the tax system that it has played I think a very important role.
So the work this committee has done in bringing this to the surface is absolutely stunning. I would say that this committee can, because of its structure and because it has continuity from year to year, pick as perhaps one of its three priorities--taking Armine's suggestion--producing its own gender analysis or its own gender budget, after the fact, unfortunately, at this point. Publish it as a document. Put it out there. Make it available. It will, I believe, become a touchstone for departments in future governments and for civil society groups that wish to address one or more points. There is a wealth of information now in the minutes of these hearings and in the various submissions you have gotten from an absolutely stunning array of experts from so many different facets of this very complex process.
With the material that is available, I think it is now possible, as a concrete, achievable goal, for you to produce some degree of gender budget or gender analysis of, let's say, the 2006, 2007, and 2008 budgets. Then maybe commit as a committee to keep updating it each year. If the committee can't quickly train the Department of Finance or induce them to develop the contextualized, purpose-driven gender analysis that is required, then this committee now has the capacity to do it.