Thank you.
I am very cognizant of the time.
Armine, you asked us a very specific question: how can we use you? If you look at all the things we were being inundated with, the fact is that they couldn't do a macro analysis. But if we as a country are giving the third world aid to eliminate poverty, AIDS, etc., why can't we do the same here? It's incongruous that if we're going to ask for gender-based analysis of that money, we can't do it here. Why?
I think what we need from you is to help us through this bafflegab. There is too much bafflegab being thrown at us. Even when we're trying to get it, we're mindful that the bureaucrats have to do their job. They have to meet the needs of—and he kept on saying it—“the government's priorities”. But if we're going to focus on gender-based budgeting or gender budgeting or gender analysis, you need to help us from a technical perspective.
All of us are committed. I think we all understand that we want to eliminate poverty; we want a return on investment from our taxes, and the return on investment of $200 billion is not there. But we don't know how to look at it as a holistic picture.
He gave the answer; I think the answer you got was “$270 million to mental health”. Yes, we know it goes to HRSDC, but who does any gender analysis? How is it helping the most vulnerable? We need your technical help.