The question you're getting at is the question of leverage. The Globe and Mail recently did some great research on this. I encourage you to look at it. They estimated that for all charities, except for your big universities—so taking out universities and hospitals, etc.—43% of their revenues are through government. Then the question becomes how you fill in and how you leverage. We're dealing with that at Minister Finley's advisory committee, the struggle at HRSDC about how we leverage funds.
What's interesting is that if you pulled away the organizations that get no government funding, I suspect it would move into the 60% area, and that's a fearful percentage. The question for you as a parliamentarian then becomes where the dollar amount itself can most effectively and productively be used. I would suggest in some cases—but not in all—there is a role for government in many of these spaces. One is mental illness, for example. There are so many illustrations about how mental illness and being able to deal with mental illness need integrated community involvement rather than just government services to be delivered effectively. That's a great example of how to be able to provide that service. You have to have a much better leveraged effort than what we have currently.