Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Again, I know you were in the room when I did my presentation on the priorities of this committee, and I still have.... Mr. Norlock likes to accuse this side of being ideological. Sometimes I feel that we have a sense that everything the government's doing in crime prevention is somehow a failure, when we have a dropping crime rate. And we will have some witnesses in next week, when we'll talk about the national crime prevention strategy and some of its successes. So I was very happy to hear you say that what you're looking to do is a supplement to what's already going on, and I think that's an important perspective to keep on the record.
My questions are about governance and accountability, and I'll tell you why with an example from my own community.
We just had a youth employment program that had been run for a long time by a group called Spectrum, which is a community non-profit, non-sectarian organization. They had to bid again for their contract, and they lost the bid to a faith-based organization, which is now providing services. We've already had questions in the community, because it's a faith-based organization that is not open to all members of the community.
I think that same thing applies when we come to the idea of social impact bonds that are done essentially by private—even if they're philanthropic—interests. What is the guarantee that they'll actually be open to serve all members of the community?