Thank you very much.
I want to second what Armine has said.
Just to add to that, we're here talking about gender budgeting, and I particularly used housing as an example because I wanted committee members to understand that even in those areas that appear gender neutral on the surface, areas you think have nothing to do with sex or with gender, there are often differential impacts on women and men. The point of gender budgeting is to think about those things up front.
For example, this committee could recommend that the Department of Finance be required to prepare analyses of the differential impacts on women and men of new budget initiatives. That would show compliance with Canada's existing commitments under the platform for action.
This goes back to your earlier comment and question, Mr. Pearson, about gender budgeting for dummies. It's not really that hard. In the Department of Finance there are very skilled experts, as Armine has said, who are expert at figuring out who is going to gain and who is going to lose by new government initiatives, whether those are expenditures or whether those are tax reductions.
I think this committee should understand that under our commitments through the Beijing Platform for Action, Canada is required to consider the differential impacts of budgetary initiatives on women and men. As a taxpaying Canadian I would be most happy if you would recommend that the Department of Finance simply did that.