I talked a little earlier about the unintended consequences of some of these income support strategies. It's a no-brainer that we should help, as governments, the people who truly can't help themselves, through income support programs. There aren't many other ways you can do this, other than through income support.
I have a son with autism who's 12 years old now, and I've seen adults with autism or other disabilities who clearly need some help with income and other supports. But when we allocate too many resources to people who can help themselves, we shortchange, in the resources we have left to help, those who truly can't.
With respect to that 50% you were talking about earlier, that hard-to-reach 50%, it seems that what has happened is that we've put our attention on the 50% who can help themselves. We throw a lot of resources and money towards this, with a focus on income support. Maybe we should be focusing on less money-intensive opportunity creation. This would in many cases serve these people better in the long term. We have nothing left to support the people, the hard-to-reach 50%, with the real help that they need.
Maybe you could comment.