Let me take your second question first. A community foundation would describe itself as a 360-degree organization. It looks at the community in its entirety. It's built from the community, and so it's of the community in that respect. It would have an open process of engaging the foundation, such that charities and enterprises in its community could come forward and say they see the potential to do this, to help strengthen Mississauga—right, Mr. Butt?—and then as a result of that we would take that in. The community, through a community board, would look at the merits of those initiatives and support them.
With respect to grant making, we can do that. But if what came forward was a request for certain kinds of investments or something like a limited partnership was being built in the community that had a public purpose—clean energy or whatever it might be—we would have significant challenges in making an investment. The investment committee of the community foundation runs up against the kind of barriers that you've heard described by Mr. Jackson and Mr. Hartt and Ms. Doyle. So that's the part of our contribution to the community that we're trying to free up.
In doing that, we would continue to live out our principles that the community would be making the decision, that the investment committee in a local community foundation is drawn from members of the community itself. We benefit repeatedly from the expertise of folks where Tim works at MaRS to be exceptionally good at impact investing. We draw on governance expertise and professional advisers to ensure we do it within the rules. At the moment, we're facing these barriers, especially around limited partnerships and PRIs, and the charities that we work with face the barrier in terms of the destination test. If they come forward with an enterprise that may return something to the organization, they bump up against the barriers imposed by the Income Tax Act.
Help on those three fronts will help us to do what the community hopes to do.