Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I really appreciate the discussion we've had today. It has really taken some different looks at this issue.
Mr. Blumberg, I appreciate your comments that we've made significant strides—CRA—in terms of where we're going. That number, $1.3 billion to $300 million, and I think you're accurate...$300 million is too much, but that's a huge difference in the last few years.
I also have to reiterate that the rules are not changing in terms of the ability for political advocacy, and I think that's getting confused in this discussion. What we're really doing is giving CRA some additional tools of transparency and ensuring that those rules are followed. It doesn't matter what the organization is focused on. CRA treats everyone the same, in terms of charities and in terms of what they do and where they go.
The one thing I am concerned about.... I absolutely agree with more transparency and having more things on forms. As someone who used to be responsible for some health facilities, like Ms. Dodd, we had...but we didn't have a foundation; the foundation was separate, but the administrator of the facilities had to do both roles.
Is there any way that we can target things, in terms of abuse, without making every single charity do massive amounts of more paperwork? Are there ways that we can target high-risk groups?
I think the reporting requirements right now for a hospital charity or for the Diabetes Association or the food bank are quite adequate. That's my concern.
How do we square that circle? We don't want to drive everyone crazy with paperwork, but we do want to increase transparency.
Mr. Blumberg, I'd like you to answer first, and then anyone else who would like to comment.