I would approach it a little bit differently. The concept of gender budgeting came out of the very same document that the concept of gender-based analysis came out of—namely, the “Platform for Action” that was adopted in Beijing in 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women, held by the United Nations.
Much of the “Platform for Action” shows policy analysts and researchers how to do gender-based analysis of literally every aspect of private and public functioning of a society and to identify the many, many complicated sources of inequity that permeate the fabric of every society on this globe. But when gender-based analysis was turned to fiscal instruments, it was realized that the capstone of any government's action is the budget, and it's the budget consultation process and the budget documents that hold it up and give it meaning.
So I would say that gender-based analysis cannot be completed until a gender budget is also devised and gender-based analysis is used in relation to every single spending and tax item, to identify both its physical and its behavioural impacts on women as compared to men. But until a gender budget is put on the table right along with the rest of the budget documents, the process is not complete.
To just comment on what this document might look like, it could look like the tax expenditure budget, which is a separate, bound budget document published by the government every year and reporting on how much the government is spending for the various items that could be seen as tax concessions in the various tax instruments that Canada uses.
A gender budget could be a separate bound volume that would contain exactly the same report on every spending and tax measure that Canada utilizes, and along with that could be analytic memoranda, a typical budget document that is also tabled with the budget, so that the gender budget becomes part of the most serious workings of government.