Thank you, Madam Chair.
I see where you're going, and I understand the context of the argument that you've put forward. Isn't there some consideration of the fact that there are also numerous upside opportunities, not just for women but for all Canadians, through the liberation of taxes on individuals and businesses?
When you take the weight of taxation from the economy, other good things happen--for example, greater job creation and more opportunities for wealth creation--which in turn provide more resources for government to make those policy investments.
To take the argument that if you left the $200 billion in, the very best way to address priorities for women is to keep taxes high and find other ways to distribute that public investment...and that's basically your argument, to keep the $200 billion in and distribute it out by way of support programs, other investments, education, income support, and those kinds of things. Aren't there also some downside risks, that this would curtail the opportunities for the Canadian economy, jobs, and other things?
I was at an event and did an announcement for immigration support at the Learning Enrichment Foundation in York Southwest—one of the poorest ridings in the country. Some of the new Canadians, newcomers to Canada, said that the very best income support they could get is to have access to a good-paying job. That has stuck with me.
You have to find a way to balance those two things, I would say. Would you give some consideration that it's not all bad?