Great, thank you.
I have to make a comment, Mr. Howlett. Certainly I appreciate your comments concerning how important it is that there are front-line groups that have the ability to have input on policy, which is why we actually created the 10% rule many years ago. The move of the government, and it doesn't matter what the organization is advocating for, is to ensure that the rules around the 10% are actually followed.
I think it's important to recognize that the rules have not changed; it's just that it's important that the CRA, in any program it has, have some tools and have some opportunity to monitor. If I were giving to Big Brothers and they were spending all their time in meetings for some issue as opposed to doing what I as a charitable giver expected them to be doing, I would be very concerned. So I think it's important to recognize that the rules aren't changing; that there's a reason the rule was put there in the first place, but that it is deemed important, and that's why the 10% piece is also there. As the parliamentary secretary for the revenue agency, I thought it was important for me to make that comment.
Ms. MacKenzie, we've heard a fair amount about stretch tax credits and a fair amount about the capital issue. I appreciate your focus on the volunteers. I have had people in my riding recently advocating for credits for volunteers, and I appreciate your comments about how complicated this is and how it may be moving us away from the whole volunteerism focus.
You talked about something like police checks supporting training. Could you talk a little more, without going down that path of tax credits, about how there might be some support that the federal government can give in terms of volunteers? What would you envision there?
Also, I anticipate that although the police checks make eminent sense, there would probably be millions and millions of them, with a fairly significant cost at $40 per check. Talk a little bit more about how you would envision that whole volunteer overlap.