Okay. I will really try to keep this brief.
My answer to your question is that some important tools have to be developed and be put into place and be used assiduously in order to be able to produce the outcome that you believe can be generated through this process.
In the April 1 submissions—which I believe were translated and distributed to you some time last week, or yesterday—there was a long table slightly refocused to 2006 and 2007 only. That is the first cut a gender analysis would do of a budget to try to get a picture of what items in the budget were going to further undermine women's positions, what items were going to have no impact, and what items were possibly going to be beneficial. In that table I ended up identifying only two items that could genuinely benefit women. It's a huge amount of gender analysis right there, which, if done every year, could feed into a lot of detailed discussions that could take place.
The next cut is table 2 in that material, which I've redone in light of what the Department of Finance has specifically said the gender impact of the working income tax credit is. This table—marked as table 1 and dated with today's date—shows that as you get more detailed information, you get a much better idea as to how much a particular initiative can help or hurt women. We see that as the Department of Finance produced more data, it was actually forced to reveal that the working income tax credit is helping women less than the department was initially claiming it was.
It's a difficult process that requires having informed people driving it. But Armine is correct that it's designed to become mainstream, so that you can increasingly have summary types of sheets, as you do with accounting records. I think if the mechanism is put into place, it will have long-term effects.