I agree with you, and I heard Ms. Minna say that we'll have to be specific.
All governments spend money on social programs. We talk about the return on investment. When you put money in, is it having the impact it is supposed to have? If it is not having the impact.... In Canada we have poverty, child poverty. We can understand working-income poverty, but there is children poverty, and families are living in poverty. How does that happen in a rich country like ours where we have a surplus of $13.5 billion?
So I think it is important that we look at gender budgeting—male-female—and specific areas of the social justice agenda, because that's where we have invested our money. We look at social justice and say, “this is what we have invested”. Ms. Minna gave an example of $25 billion in tax credits. As a government, as responsible MPs, how do we ensure that all the investment we make, either now or in the future, is to the maximum benefit of those we are trying to advance? Other countries have been very good at gender-based budgeting--I think Sweden is one of them--and they have had good success in trying to alleviate poverty.
We all think we need to find an answer to why we are putting money into this black hole and it's not doing anything. We could look at it but restrict the study. We can't be everything to everyone because that will not work. So if you agree, choose three priorities--call it your social justice agenda and gender budgeting--and see where we can go. Then we can ask the analysts to come up with some suggestions.
Are we in agreement with doing gender budgeting in the first round? It does affect the economic security of women and the areas where trafficking can be applied. But we have to be careful. We can say we are trying to alleviate poverty and illiteracy. As a federal government we have invested so much money through our social transfer payments, and it doesn't seem to be having an impact.
I need consensus here.