Public Safety Committee on May 13th, 2014

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

A program that might be deemed successful—and I know that some of it is based on surveys from the participants and so on, so it is somewhat discretionary upon who is filling out the surveys—might be delivered under a social finance model. Could you explain the difference in delivery between what we currently do today with regard to crime prevention and this evaluation period of five years, and what we would do through a social finance model?

[Shawn Tupper]

Very quickly, our current model is basically based on a project proponent coming forward and making a submission. We work with that organization to make sure they meet the criteria of our program, and if they do, they basically enter into the competitive pool. This program is oversubscribed in terms of the number of projects we get against what we are able to fund. It's a straightforward grant and contribution program; it's contributions.

New mechanisms would be, for instance, what we're doing with some of the small organizations we've been partnering with. We might use some of our money to seed social enterprise. We did this, again here in Ottawa, with John Howard, but the great example is what we did with the roofing company. We gave them the equivalent of $2,375 per participant or per employee of that new company. They were able to establish a firm using some of our money, which gave full-time living-wage employment to 40 women offenders coming out of the system in British Columbia. Through sustained employment, they were able to afford apartments and to live in their community. That's a great example of how we can find those partnerships, and with small amounts of money, seed an enterprise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tupper.

Now, Mr. Garrison, go ahead, please.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to return to a point that Mr. Maguire raised about our attitude on this side of the table.

We see this fundamentally as a question of what priorities the committee has. We haven't said there aren't good things in the study we're doing. We're saying it seems a very narrow study when there are much bigger problems to be looking at. I also see the discussion—and this is one of my concerns about social finance ideas and crime prevention—often straying into other good social development projects, which have very little directly to do with crime prevention. We have limited resources to spend on the actual crime prevention programs, which actually work quite well in this country and which other people look to as models of what's happening.

I'm really still wondering why such large emphasis is being given to this when our crime rate is dropping and we've had a lot of success—I'll give credit—under the national crime prevention strategy. We've had a lot of successes.

So what is the motivation? Is it really just tapping new money, as you're talking about?

[Kathy Thompson]

In part the motivation is the increase in costs. While the crime rate is going down, unfortunately the costs of the criminal justice system are continuing to increase at a rate of about $20 billion a year, for policing, courts, legal aid, and so on. That is part of the motivation.

Also, as I indicated earlier, some of the initiatives fortunately are able to secure continued funding, but not in all cases. It is an issue for the program that the funding ends after five years, and in some cases for very promising initiatives that ought to be considered longer-term. We are looking to see whether there other mechanisms that can be used to help foster them and continue the social benefits.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

So then, there really is an aspect of cost reduction driving this kind of initiative.

A second question I have is this. If you're bringing private money into the crime prevention system, don't we have a danger...? I hesitate to say “would you agree with me”, as Mr. Norlock always does, but would you agree that we have a danger that private decisions will distort the public priorities?

For example, we visited Calgary and talked about all the wonderful programs funded by businesses in Calgary. Calgary is very lucky. It has the headquarters of the oil sands, with a lot of money and a need to buy goodwill with a lot of that money. But if you go to other communities in Alberta or British Columbia that don't have those corporate headquarters and don't have those companies that need to buy goodwill, you don't have those resources.

When the government ends up funding or advancing funds to those private interests to make these initiatives work, it really drives money to where the money already is instead of sometimes to the communities that have the greatest need.

[Shawn Tupper]

You're asking for a comment.

I certainly don't deny that Calgary has the luxury of a lot of headquarters and a lot of money. But look at the example of Vancity in British Columbia. Their region of operation is the entirety of the province. I haven't looked at their numbers in a while, but my recollection is that a couple of years ago they were trying to transfer half of their total asset investments to social impact investing. I think their assets at the time were $14 billion, and they were trying to ensure that at least $7 billion was invested across the province of British Columbia in social impact investing. I would very much encourage you to speak with Vancity in that regard. It's a great example.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

My other concern is that some kinds of crime prevention are sexier than others or more popular than others.

We have the example of Circles of Support and Accountability, which is very successful. It has very high success rates in dealing with sex offenders returning to the community. But it's very hard for me to imagine that you can sell that to a corporate sponsor as a kind of project you need to do, even though it has huge results and huge impacts in avoiding future crime.

Again it's the same idea. How are we going to get people to look at what is sometimes the greatest need, when we're dealing with unpopular topics?

[Shawn Tupper]

Our experience with that is that, when we were out looking at potential partners, one of the elements we confronted the most was “we don't want to deal with sex offenders”. We spent a lot of time educating those potential partners about just what and who a sex offender is.

The fact is that not every sex offender is a high-risk offender. By giving them a little bit of knowledge and understanding of the kinds of offenders they might be working with, we've actually made some progress.

Habitat for Humanity is a perfect example of that. Many of the local habitat organizations were very concerned about the kinds of people they might be working with. When they realized, through some of the workshops we were doing, that the very people already working for them were the people they were worried about, we were able to dissipate a lot of that fear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Garrison.

Mr. Norlock, please.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Let me go along with this whole idea of partnering. My background is policing. When I began policing, we didn't have any volunteers in police offices or stations or detachments, and today we do.

If we take a look at our health care system, which is one of the biggest burdens every level of government has, even down to municipalities, in my municipality we're now paying a bit of a premium on our property taxes to keep our little rural hospital open. What do we have in the hospitals? They would not be able to function without partnering with the community. I'm talking about volunteers who work in their offices.

This committee just looked at the economics of policing. We saw that more and more police organizations are not cutting back anywhere, but they have volunteers who help out.

You can look at every segment of our society. You came right out and said.... You were talking about the banks. Among the examples I use, thanks to our good researchers, is RBC and its involvement in the community. You mentioned CIBC.

To me, it makes sense. I think most people who pay taxes would say that if you're going to use some of their valuable tax dollars to help reduce crime—and I'd like you to make a comment on this—which is a good thing because it saves policing and judicial costs and the whole judicial system, then they want you to maximize those dollars.

Then you have companies—banks, Canadian Tire, Tim Hortons, but it doesn't matter who it is—who want to do things in a positive way for their communities. What better way is there than to work with youth or other folks to help reduce crime, which affects not only their bottom line...? Let's talk about what affects us. We're all worried about our back pocket, whether as the taxpayer paying taxes or as one whose house may be broken into or their car smashed in to go after the wallet that was left carelessly on the seat.

I wonder if you could make some comments about your experience and the willingness of the private sector to meet with governments, who aren't necessarily cutting back but who just have limited resources, and about how these companies can work with us to maximize our impact on the increasing cost of crime.

[Kathy Thompson]

Certainly there are companies—you mentioned Tim Hortons—whose goal is to provide goods and services while also addressing a social agenda. I think those are the kinds of companies you want to partner with.

Just to go back to Shawn's point earlier, it really comes down to the partnership in communities. That is what the federal government is trying to do. It's not in fact to reduce, but to try to find a way to partner and get maximum benefit out of some of these initiatives.

I think it's about the types of companies. It may not be a model for all companies, but there are some companies whose mission very clearly is to deliver the goods and services but also to go further and promote social good and be a responsible partner in the community.

[Shawn Tupper]

It's one of the elements that will be different in Canada from what you might appreciate in other countries, such as the U.K. and the United States. Canada does not have the depth of philanthropic spending that you would see through the charitable trusts and the foundations in either the U.K. or the United States. We just don't have that kind of money in Canada. We rely on social financing; we rely on private sector investment and their inclinations to look at social good, because we don't have access to significant funds of money that are held by foundations or charitable organizations.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Thank you for that, because you just hit on something that I think this study needs to look at. Perhaps if we can show some positive outcomes, could we not then loosen up some of those trusts, some of those people who are reluctant in Canada—those limited dollars—by saying, this really works, and if you guys help us and put your shoulder to the wheel, as it were, to assist us, you can have some positive outcomes, and your philanthropic organization, will be able to show some positive outcomes? Then the people who contribute to your trust will be even more prone to want to do so.

Would you not agree with me that the innovation you're looking at may end up stimulating even more participation in crime reduction, which is a problem that affects everyone, rich, poor, or otherwise? Would you agree?

[Shawn Tupper]

I would say the more you improve the model, the more people will come to want to use it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Fine, thank you very much.

Mr. Easter, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think you're seeing some of the differences of opinion on the committee. There's no question that the national crime prevention strategy does good work. But I would agree with Randall that there are other priorities the committee maybe should be looking at. One of them is the challenge around mental health issues, which is really one of the major contributors to the cost of policing. It's one of the major contributors to the cost of corrections.

I'm wondering, under the national crime prevention strategy, if you do any work at all in terms of the mental health and addiction problems that are really out there. I was at the mental health champions awards, I think they're called, one evening last week, and there was an individual there whose last name was Batten. He's now leading a very productive life, but he told a heart-wrenching story, when he accepted his award, of being incarcerated and spending a lot of his time in solitary confinement, until somebody took an interest in his issue and his mental health problems and addiction problems. As a result of that, he's now leading a very productive life and won one of the mental health champions awards.

So I think what that shows is that if there's the right programming out there, some of these so-called problem people can be producers in terms of society and contribute to the economy. So I'm wondering if there's anything under the NCPS.... Do you have any programming in that area at all? Or is it mostly with youth?

[Shawn Tupper]

The focus of the program at this point in time is around youth. But indeed in that context we do look at addictions and drugs as a major component of the programming that we're doing, so drug interventions and whatnot. There is some element of mental health that builds into that, because there is a correlation between addictions and mental health issues.

We don't have specific envelopes of funding that would be exclusively dedicated to mental health issues. One of the things, though, that we try to do is to understand how issues link up, because oftentimes, as I say, crime, drugs and addictions, and mental health are all things that become linked. So when we do our investments, we try very much to ensure we are partnering with different agencies that can bring their various expertise to the kinds of things we're doing.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I want to come back again to my worry of where this social financing might go. In terms of our research, you did mention in the beginning, I believe, that the only example thus far that you're utilizing in terms of social finance is the pay for performance. Am I correct in that?

[Shawn Tupper]

Correct.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Because what's happening around the rest of the world is much broader than that, and you mentioned the ones in Britain. But if I was to look at the project in Australia:

The first Social Impact Bond in Australia will hand investors a return of up to 15% per year. Investors in the Peterborough prison project...stand to make as much as $4.7 million on an investment of $7.9 million—a return of over 68%.

There are other examples. We can look to the U.S. in terms of California, which is basically broke because they've privatized the prison system. I do not want to see Canada go that way, although that seems to be the way our criminal justice system is going at the moment.

[Voices]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

No, it's no joke. It's the facts, guys.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Half a minute, Mr. Easter, and you're over, please.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

But in any event, it's not anticipated, from your perspective at the moment...going these other ways that these other countries have gone? Or are all these four options that are on your paper here options that Public Safety could go to?