Public Safety Committee on June 3rd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to meeting 27 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today we are following up on our study on social financing. We have two hours of evaluations. During the first hour we have two witnesses with us. From the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, we have Shawn Tupper, the assistant deputy minister of the emergency management and program branch. Welcome, sir. We also have with us Bobby Matheson, the director general of the national crime prevention centre.

Let me apologize before you start, gentlemen. As you are well aware, June can be unique on the Hill. We have votes, and the bells will ring at 3:47. At that time we will suspend; we will go to vote—very quickly, we hope—and be back here to finish the first hour.

That is the schedule we have before us. I understand that both of our witnesses will not be presenting, so we will go to the questions right off the bat. That will be very helpful, as I think we're all aware of the topic. We will start with questions from the government side.

Ms. James, you have the floor.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our officials for coming back and giving us some more information.

Many of the witnesses we heard from at our last committee meetings were talking more about the social finance of this particular study, but we need to take a step back and also see what worked well with our current NCPC funding strategy and the parameters of that program.

I'm wondering if you can speak for a moment about some of the funding the government has done that has been hugely successful, where we have seen results, and how those results were measured to determine the success of these particular funding projects.

[Shawn Tupper, Assistant Deputy Minister, Emergency Management and Program Branch, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

We are in the midst of preparing a fairly extensive package for you based on the questions you posed the last time I was here. We're trying to look at some of the programs that deal with alternative suspensions, the stop now and plan community-based program for children 6 to 11 who have been at risk of coming into contact with the law. We're preparing for you some information around multi-systemic therapies, which we've had particular success with in dealing with youth between the ages of 12 and 17.

All these programs that I'm listing here—and we'll be able to give you a much broader overview as well—are demonstrating very positive results. That includes examples under our program that deal with multi-systemic therapy, wherein we're seeing 92% of youth who have been out of the home placed back in the home and able to stay in the home after three months of intake into the program. We'll be able to pull together for you a range of programs that have shown great success, and for which we'll give you the results on how we are having an impact on youth in this country.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

To touch base a little more on the multi-systemic therapies that you just talked about, you said there's been 92% success with youth who have been out of the home but been able to go back to the home and still be there after three months. What happens after six months or a year? Are these projects monitored for a long period of time so we can see their real success?

Is there any indication that just because someone has gone back home that they're not going to commit a crime in the future? This is really related to crime prevention, so I'm trying to figure out how we measure success of that particular program as it relates to crime prevention a year from now, two years from now, and down the road.

[Shawn Tupper]

These are five-year projects. So over the course of these investments, we are able to track individuals for the duration of the program. We are unable to monitor them beyond the five-year funding. That is the way the program is designed. Five years of tracking and gathering data is a fairly informative process for us.

The evidence is very clear. If youth at risk are able to remain in the home environment, remain in a family environment, with the support of parents and siblings, and able to live in a stable capacity, it has a very clear impact on their ability to avoid coming into contact with the law. So we are seeing good clear evidence that being in a stable home environment is a positive element in preventing crime.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

It's good to know that there are some successes, but I know there are also some that are not so successful. In your compilation of all the program funding, have you been able to isolate it to certain programs that were less successful?

I've done a number of announcements in and around my area in Scarborough, but I've heard stories of some of the funding programs, for example, getting some of the participants to perform puppet shows and such, and I think that when people hear about crime prevention, they're not thinking about children participating in these types of activities.

I'm just wondering if you have an idea of what programs were less successful compared with the multi-systemic therapies that you just talked about.

[Shawn Tupper]

We are pulling together that information. I don't have the unsuccessful programs with me today.

Suffice it to say, as I described to you in my last appearance, we basically categorize our investments in three ways: proven programs, promising programs, and new programs. If you're a promising or a proven program, those investments generally produce very positive results for us. But clearly the design of this program is intended to do a little bit of experimentation—the new programs. It is a minor part of our investments, but we accept, in terms of that design, that it is worth the experiment to see if something works. If it doesn't work, we stop funding. But we do learn from it in the sense of understanding why it didn't work, and we might either make adjustments to those projects to see if we can recast them, or we just stop altogether, assuming or concluding that it is not a worthwhile investment in terms of its impact on crime reduction.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Just recently we had someone here from CoSA, Circles of Support and Accountability.

[Shawn Tupper]

Yes.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

He came with some very interesting percentages or figures on the rate of success with individuals who have left prison. The program that they offer, through some of our funding through the government.... It was recognized that they have not had to seek outside investors for the past five years, thanks to the government funding, but they were also open to some of our ideas on social finance and thought perhaps that could fit.

One of the areas of social finance is pay for performance. Based on the statistics that gentleman from Circles of Support provided, I would certainly think that there would be outside investors that would be interested in participating based on the rate of success.

Do you think that type of program to reduce recidivism amongst the prison population once they've been released would benefit from taking a look at social finance?

[Shawn Tupper]

Yes. That's the simple answer.

I'm aware of his presentation to you, and I am aware of his statistics. I don't know the sources of all of his statistics.

We are in the midst of working with CoSA in terms of doing an evaluation of the program that we have been funding, and that evaluation is expected to conclude in the fall. It is from there that we would be able to show what the results are after the five years of funding they received from us. Presumably, if his data holds true through our evaluation, that would be exactly the kind of program that could be promoted to partners in the community, where some sort of social finance arrangement may be possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Ms. James.

Now we have Madam Doré Lefebvre.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My thanks to Mr. Matheson and Mr. Tupper for joining us today. We greatly appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, I think it is extremely important to receive witnesses to discuss various issues of the country's public safety. As we have mentioned a number of times on this side of the table, we could spend our valuable work time on more meaningful studies rather than on continuing to deal with social finance.

If I may, I will give notice of a motion. Let me read it before I ask my questions. Here is what the motion proposes:

That the Committee undertake a study on access to healthcare in federal penitentiaries, while accounting for recent cuts to nursing in Correctional Service Canada institutions and the resulting effects on their staff, and that the Committee report its findings to the House of Commons.

I therefore table this notice of motion.

Gentlemen, you have just talked about CoSA, and I find that extremely interesting. I actually wanted to ask questions about that. You said that it would be worthwhile to present it to promoters or private investors. I believe that was your last comment.

However, witnesses told us to think about the fact that some areas of public safety should not be open to private investors. Some gave as examples the homeless and seniors, and others talked about the reintegration of offenders into society. CoSA specializes in support groups for very high-risk offenders, sex offenders.

Why are we being told, on the one hand, that there should not be private investments in the case of high-risk offenders and, on the other hand, as you argue, that this is a great idea that should be proposed to private investors?

What are you basing this statement on?

[Shawn Tupper]

I think that by and large the concept of social financing is not a black and white equation. I think the ability for us to find partners in the community who leverage resources there that aren't necessarily financial, but could be in-kind contributions from partners, means that it isn't about the government walking away from its obligation to pursue good policy with respect to offender reintegration into the community. It's about expanding the range of partners whom we work with in the community.

And so it's about our ability to find partners who may be willing to finance a project. For instance, with high-risk offenders, we are working with the John Howard Society to look at potential employment programs for those offenders who otherwise find it difficult to find employment. The society is able to make arrangements in the city, for instance, working with the city in the context of social housing where these offenders could be doing maintenance and care, or where the society is running a small enterprise and the individual offenders are earning income. They're supervised by John Howard and there's a benefit to the city, because through a contractual arrangement they are able to get services into social housing, and so there's a positive cycle there.

It isn't about replacing government. It's about expanding the partnerships and the relationships and leveraging other resources into successful outcomes for offender reintegration into the community.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Has your budget been cut over the past few years?

[Shawn Tupper]

The NCPC budget is currently in the range of $41 million. As a result of the deficit reduction action plan, it was reduced by about $1 million. In my department the difficulty is that between the first nation policing program and the crime prevention program, those are the largest components of our budget. So it was very difficult to avoid completely leaving those programs untouched.

But in the case of NCPC, it's currently funded at about $41 million per year, which since the DRAP exercise is about $1 million less than what it was. So it has not been reduced in any significant way.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Matheson, has your centre suffered budget cuts?

[Bobby Matheson, Director General, National Crime Prevention Centre, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness]

As Mr. Tupper said, our budget has been cut by $2 million.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

In your view, do those cuts affect your services at all?

[Shawn Tupper]

Over the last four years, in fact, as a result of the reformulation of this program in 2008—we basically had to restructure ourselves and get our footing again—we were actually lapsing money.

Right now, the amount of money we're putting out the door is the highest we've ever done in making effective investments in crime prevention programming.

[Rosane Doré Lefebvre, NDP, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I can't remember whether I asked this question last time. You can refresh my memory on the issue.

You talked about looking at whether CoSA could benefit from private investments or from social finance. Can you think of other public safety areas that could use social finance? Conversely, are there areas that should avoid social finance entirely, in your view?

[Shawn Tupper]

I appreciate your point, and I think there clearly are areas where government must remain involved. I do think high-risk offenders would be one area and mental health would be another, particularly when you're dealing with offenders. It isn't to say that we can't find different kinds of arrangements to work with our community partners, but clearly those are areas where government needs to remain involved.

As I said at our last meeting, we are not seeing any removal of funding or any change in our programming that suggests the government is removing itself from those program areas.

I think there are other areas, where we're dealing with less-risky offenders whose integration back into the community could easily be highlighted by a strong community partnership, where the communities are making a significant investment and where we're more or less doing monitoring and oversight.

[The Chair, Conservative, Daryl Kramp]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tupper.

Thank you, Madam Doré Lefebvre.

Now to Mr. Norlock, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Through you to the witnesses, thank you making your second appearance on this very important topic. I'll tell you why I think it's important.

Over the weekend, I had occasion to attend the 10th anniversary of the ReStore, which is part of Habitat for Humanity. I think I mentioned in this committee before, how 12 difficult-to-employ young persons were included in one of the Habitat builds because of a government investment, in partnership with some money from another government department—and not through Public Safety, I must say. As a result of that investment, it was confirmed that approximately 10 of the 12 are now fully employed in the construction industry.

Would you not agree that is a perfect example of how some government money going to a non-profit agency can not only benefit the community but also give homes to three families, which I believe all had children? I go along with your first statement that a proper domicile to a loving and caring family is the first beneficiary, but the real beneficiary is society, in that 10 people who may have been on the unemployment or the hard-to-employ list are now not only employed but are also paying taxes.

Can you relate any possible similarities to other types of government investment you're aware of, while they may not be directly involved—I'm thinking of training issues and those types of things where we partner with non-government agencies—but that get a good result with a small amount of government investment?

[Shawn Tupper]

Habitat is the perfect example. The federal government launched a national partnership with Habitat for Humanity last spring, and while my department does not produce all the funding that goes into that partnership, it is through the horizontal partnerships we have established, across departments that we are able to effect those kinds of results.

Through that partnership with Habitat, our goal is to have offenders hired on to every build site that Habitat runs across the country and to see them integrated into their ReStore stores as employees. That's a really great example of how, with very little funding from the federal government, we're having a big impact on the positive possibilities for offenders to reintegrate into the community.

Our best example, I think, of costs for money is a small enterprise that was started in British Columbia a couple of years ago. It's a project for recycling asphalt shingles off homes. It's a new technology that is green. Apparently we've never been able to recycle asphalt shingles before. Now, we're using new green technology to do that, which is taking tons of waste out of the waste sites around British Columbia. But most importantly, for an investment of $2,375 per individual, we have been able to facilitate full-time employment that produces living wages for 40 women offenders in B.C.

It's a great example, and let me tell you, we spend a lot more than $2,375 per capita on individuals, but that small investment—one that came out of ESDC, which supplied the money—has had a very positive impact on those 40 women.