In your remarks you also talked about social finance creating an environment—I'm not sure if those were the exact words you used—but the ability to have tangible measurements or a way to, after the fact, go back and see whether you succeeded with your targets, and based on those, the social finance aspect of it comes into play.
As you know, governments fund crime prevention programs. We have been investing a lot of money, but a lot of that has been directed more at changing attitudes without any real capability to determine long term, down the road, whether there have been any tangible results, whether we're able to reduce recidivism or prevent crime in the first place. That's one of the reasons we're here today: to see if social finance may be, as you said, another tool in the tool box. It's not the answer to everything, but certainly if we can bring more money into the fold and invest and expand our capabilities, it's something that I think any government should be looking at.
I have one other question. You talked about the need for a culture shift. Obviously, up until this time, at least within many governments across Canada, whether federal or provincial—you talked about some social finances being deployed elsewhere—certainly it's always been the responsibility of the government or the police to prevent crime. You said it shouldn't be only government or only the police, whether it's the RCMP or local police forces on the ground, but that really it's the community, everyone, who should be concerned about this. I think that's a very good point to make.
Do you see any hurdles for the federal government? I guess this is going back to the culture shift. Do you think that we are here now—based on some of the evidence that has come out, evidence-based successful projects—where the federal government should be looking into these?