I think that every level of government potentially has a role. The question is what role they would have depends upon what enablers they have at hand. For instance, in terms of tax models that would be more federal or provincial, I would think.
In terms of recognizing social impact from people who are making donations or philanthropic organizations that are getting heavily involved in this, if they're working with the health care sector and we're providing what's essentially an expansion of a health care need, does that social impact merit a higher level of a charitable tax credit than what they would get? Or is there a way of returning some of the money they've invested in achieving a health care end back to them, that can then be recycled into the organization that's providing that care?
If there's a million-dollar donation, yes, there are certain tax credits. Can some of that be recycled back once they achieve certain health care metrics with regard to people being stabilized and people avoiding the vertical transmission of HIV? If we're providing housing and services to women who are pregnant and HIV positive.... In chaos, they may very well transmit that to their fetus. We can prevent a lifetime of HIV care if we can provide stabilization to high-risk women and prevent that vertical transmission. Is there a way of recognizing that, in terms of some of the funding models, in order to keep that money recycling and supporting these very marginalized, vulnerable people and programs that are just grossly underfunded?
The other thing I mentioned—and I don't want to be in competition with the police—is recognizing that proceeds of crime related to trafficking and drugs perhaps could be a source of revenue as well, to address the demand side of this.