That's an excellent question.
Of course, in developing our approach, we've been looking at other countries and finding ways to determine what they do best, and replicating and learning from those challenges. The foundation to effective gender budgeting, as you've mentioned, is good-quality data. That's the biggest limit, and that's an area that we have to continue to build upon, which is why, in addition to committing to legislate GBA+, there has been significant acknowledgement from provinces, territories, women's groups, and our government that we need to invest in good-quality data. We're doing that.
You referred to the OECD, and we've actually been working with the OECD not just to help us do gender budgeting well but also to help us with our GBA+ process as a whole, which is another reason we were able to introduce Canada's first gender budget.
Another thing that's different about Canada—and it's more challenging but it's really important for a country as diverse as Canada—is the fact that our gender budget isn't just a gendered budget. The plus is there too. It's an intersectional gendered lens that is going to make a significant difference. Legislating GBA+ ensures that there is more accountability. There will be public reporting, of course, to Parliament but also to the public as a part of it. Ensuring that Status of Women Canada has the ability to monitor the quality of GBA+ that leads to an effective gender budget is going to be critical to our success.
This is just our first year doing it. We know there will be opportunities to improve it, but I can't overemphasize two things: one, the importance of reliable, valid intersectional gender-disaggregated data; and two, the importance of fostering a culture and a workplace that ensure that every decision that cabinet makes has that intersectional gendered lens applied before we get to the budget-making process that the finance minister and the Prime Minister are part of.