I have not given it that much thought, but on the surface I like your idea, even if that is a temporary measure, because certainly it would create some incentive for people. We know there will be challenges within households with what I would call “disposable income”, but if that were a consideration, I believe that would be worthy, even in the short term. I would see that as part of a partnership between the federal government and the agencies, like Siloam and others participating on the phone here and across the country, whereby we could continue.
At Siloam, given the fact that 90% of our dollars are from donors, we think we need to be good stewards with every dollar so that we can stretch them to the best of our ability. I think a partnership that would include a measure like that with the federal government would perhaps get donor communities to continue giving. I also think that in addition to being able to adopt measures like that, we need to be in a position as organizations to show the impact they are having. That's why I said in my earlier comments that whatever measures could be done or put into place, including the one you just suggested, should show the impact they are having.
We talked a lot about housing today. It starts with housing, but you need the supports. That's where those operational dollars come into play so much. They say, “Okay, John Doe, you have a place now, but you must have the supports.” He must have the ability to attend job training to rehone his skills or learn a new skill.
Our biggest fear, quite frankly, is that if the 90% should plummet significantly, we have no choice but to cut back services. That would be a sad day, not only for non-profit organizations but for the hospitals and the places that serve our communities that will continue to be overloaded by people showing up at emergency rooms and elsewhere who are battling addictions and mental health issues.
It's complicated, but the simplest way I can explain it to you is if that method and other methods.... I think the Reaching Home initiative is tremendous, but I'd like to see it get more legs. Siloam has participated in the national housing co-investment fund. It's great, but it needs to gain more momentum. We should see what's working and what's not, and redirect the dollars into areas where they are needed for those who are working on the ground.
We would be a very worthy participant in trying to trade ideas. I don't want to get ahead of myself, because I think all of us on this conference call today are speaking the same language, but accountability needs to be put in place by all of us. If you were to increase the non-refundable tax credits around charitable donations and if the national housing strategy were to expand, get more aggressive or redirect, I would expect that in return you would need to see results.
Thank you.