Sure, that's the point. When you use the tax expenditure verbiage--and I know it's widely used within government, and I respect that--it does imply a cost that in some ways is subjective, depending on one's assumptions, and the motivation.
Speaking of subjectivity and the whole issue of political advocacy and how you judge that, I'll give some examples. One is a wildlife federation that hypothetically advocates against a gun registry, which is hypothetical these days. We register lobbyists now in Canada, but we don't register long guns. As another example, let us consider an environmental NGO that may express views contrary to government policy on the environment, or an international NGO that may campaign vigorously against government cuts to international development in certain countries. How do you compare those to, for instance, a church that may oppose or campaign against a government social policy?
This is very subjective, and I find it difficult. I'd really appreciate some of your insight in terms of how you define what is appropriate. How do you quantify or analyze granularly, in an objective way, something that seems inherently subjective in terms of what are appropriate levels of advocacy, and what type of advocacy crosses the line? That's one I'm really concerned about.