I'll give you an example of something I consider a lose-lose. I have several foster brothers. I have two foster brothers in Alberta—I'm not going to name them—who are on what's called AISH, assured income for the severely handicapped. In my view, both of those foster brothers are employable. I've had several conversations with them. They've gone through some pretty tough circumstances that they may need help with, but surely they're not severely handicapped to the point where they don't need to be working.
In both cases they live in basement apartments and their lives are pretty much consumed right now by surfing the Internet, playing video games, and things like that. They're in their twenties. I would make the argument that in both cases their lives could be a lot better than that. When I've had discussions with them, they contend that if they were to get a job they would lose their AISH, and that's their concern.
Without going too much into provincial politics, I would also make the argument that the money they receive, while it's not that significant an amount of money--I think they could be making significantly more money if they were working, especially in the Alberta environment right now--could probably be better spent on people who really, truly need the money. So I look at that as a lose-lose, in a sense.
You've got the unintended consequences of trying to help these two individuals who really are probably worse off because of the help they're receiving, I think, and at the same time that money is not being spent in another area where perhaps it might be able to help people who truly cannot help themselves. And that's a concern I have.