Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, I would like to welcome you.
I'm going to continue in the wake of what Mr. Pearson said. This is quite complex. Sometimes we get the impression that we're experiencing a surprising paradox. We try to define a budget that promotes gender equality and to acquire the tools to do that. In the past two years, we've dealt with two Conservative government budgets that do not appear to be promoting gender equality.
One question is of great concern to me. Is it preferable to allocate a government's budget surpluses to pay down the debt or to invest part of those amounts in social programs in order precisely to promote gender equality?
In the past year, we've had witnesses tell us about women's economic security. We've virtually made the rounds of what could concern that type of economic security. We've talked about elderly women, housing, employment insurance and women heads of single-parent families. In general, the heads of single-parent families are women. So very few tools currently exist. In addition, in the government's last budget statement, there is no indication that concrete measures and means will be taken to promote equality between men and women.
Doesn't allocating all budget surpluses to pay down the debt further heighten the inequality between men and women?