My short list is quite similar. You've been charged with looking at gender budgeting. Come out of this with a recommendation, I would ask, that, as Armine has said and I've said earlier, requires those very talented and very knowledgeable staff in the Department of Finance to ask and answer the question: will this initiative, whether it's an expenditure reduction or a new program, have a differential impact on women and men, boys and girls, and if so, in what ways?
Lay it out. Make it clear, so that you as parliamentarians and your other colleagues can vote, clear in the knowledge that if you vote for this initiative you're increasing the gap or decreasing the gap between women and men.
The second item on my wish list—and although in my housing case study I've touched on it, we've not really had an opportunity to discuss it much here today—is the importance of understanding that neither women nor men are homogenous. You'll see in the case study I did on housing that we looked at women and men first, then we looked at women and men of aboriginal identity in my city and our province; we looked at women and men and boys and girls with and without disabilities; and we looked at immigrants. It's a real mistake to assume that all women are homogeneous and all men are homogenous, because they're not.
However, having said that, whichever group we looked at—immigrants, aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people, people with disabilities, people without disabilities—however you sliced it, more women lived in core housing need than men.