Public Safety Committee on May 29th, 2014

[Denise Hearn]

I think it's a valid concern, but I would also say that what we have seen internationally is that as social service agencies are moving from their current measurement system, it's not so much that there's increased pressure for results, but just that there's a better measurement system. For example, a lot of employment programs at this point are saying, for instance, that they've put 40 people through their employment training program, but they cannot tell you how many of those individuals went on to place for employment and how long they retained their employment. I'm sure that many of them would be successful; however, in this current landscape there's simply this shift happening, moving from one type of measurement to the next.

What a social impact bond allows an organization to do is to better tell their stories of success through the implementation of better data collection and measurement.

[Lars Boggild]

Just to add, very briefly, what we also see is that non-profits themselves, social sector agencies—and not all should participate, or want to necessarily, and that's okay—also understand that the resourcing that can come along with the social impact bond can enable them to improve their performance and invest in tools so they can really translate the efforts they're making into the ultimate outcomes they're trying to pursue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

You have 30 seconds.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

My riding is made up of mostly rural communities. We don't have many urban areas. So there has to be some benefit, as far as investment goes, to projects carried out in rural communities. I hope you're getting some sense of the situation.

[Lars Boggild]

We're certainly trying to. What we would note is the difference with social impact bonds initially, and certainly in the future. It's a very new tool, and as a result the transaction costs are quite high. But we do expect those to decline over time, and organizations like ours are just trying to improve ourselves so we can produce these more efficiently. As we get better at that, we will be able to work with smaller populations as well to make this viable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you, Mr. Rousseau.

Now, batting cleanup, Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions.

In setting up his question, one of the opposition members earlier seemed as though he were asserting that there were specific groups that he felt maybe wouldn't be able to be served by the idea of a social impact bond. One of them seemed to be aboriginal Canadians. That was a sort of assertion that was being made there.

I want to challenge that assertion. I don't understand why it couldn't, in fact, serve first nations people. I want to hear your thoughts.

Would you see social impact bonds as having a lot of potential to serve our first nations people, our first nations youth, these types of programs? Is there any reason why they couldn't? And when we talk about culturally sensitive programming, if it's showing results, could social impact bonds not be used for aboriginals to provide them some benefits?

[Lars Boggild]

Yes. In fact, in many of the provinces we're working in and interacting with, there is interest in that particular issue, whether it's aboriginal populations that are perhaps sometimes at risk of criminal justice interaction or whether, in other cases, it's focused at things like early childhood development within aboriginal populations. We've also looked at educational attainment gaps within various aboriginal populations.

Within that diversity, I guess the broad theme is that, yes, these are tools that can be used to address that population, certainly, because it can be well defined as well.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay.

I noticed that you were both here for the first panel. I'll just reread the very brief end of a quote, because it talked about social impact bonds and one of the reasons they're so positive: “It takes risk off the shoulder of government: if no positive benefit is generated, the government is not on the hook to pay any money.”

That speaks to two things that I think are very crucial here. One is that there is value for taxpayers' money, which is important. The other part of it, though, is the idea that we're ensuring outcomes. That is even more important. When we're talking about ensuring outcomes, we're actually talking about helping people. We're talking about changing lives. That's what “outcomes” means. It's not just a word. It means that people's lives are actually being changed, that we're providing some significant help for people.

If that's the case, is this idea of a social impact bond not worth at least trying, to make sure that we can get the best results possible for at-risk Canadians?

[Denise Hearn]

That would be our contention, yes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay.

There's nothing you want to add to that?

[Lars Boggild]

Only that it's part of the reason why we get up in the morning, frankly.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Absolutely, and we appreciate that. We appreciate the work you're doing. We think there are definitely some positives that can be generated here. We appreciate what you're doing, we appreciate your being here today, and we appreciate your answers to the questions and your testimony today.

Thank you very much.

[Denise Hearn]

Thank you very much for having us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Hearn and Mr. Boggild, thank you so much for your contribution today. We certainly do appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts with us today.

I thank all our committee members for their contributions as well.

We are adjourned.