I was going to speak about that example, and I certainly responded that I don't tend to see it as a zero-sum game. What that example said to me, as you were speaking about it, Mr. Lake, concerned the enormous number of disincentives that continue to be built into our income security programs, where your foster mothers would feel it was in their self-interest to continue, assuming they're making a set of rational choices.
I think that's true for income security programs across the country. For instance, a single mother would face the terrible choice of giving up her dental coverage or her access to a clothing allowance for winter. We were talking about what poor people go without. The answer is warm clothes for their kids, real boots to wear to school, and participation in a variety of things. We force low-income people who are reliant or dependent on income security support systems to make these terrible trade-offs all the time.
That was what I was going to say in response to how I heard your example of the foster mothers.
In terms of the question about whether we spend disproportionately, the idea that we're spending too much money on active labour market programs or training for low-income people, well, in fact that's not the experience in Canada. Canada stands out as actually having a fairly undeveloped training assistance and apprenticeship program, particularly for low-income people.
I think there's much to be done in both ways in offering supports not only for people on income assistance programs to participate in the labour market, but for those who would be able to participate in other forms of community life. I speak from my own experience of having a brother with a developmental disability when I speak of providing those opportunities to people to participate in their communities. We've really not done a very good job of that in Canada today.