Thanks, Sally, and thanks to the committee once again for hosting our presentation.

I think it's good to start by mentioning that the spectrum of social finance being reviewed by this committee is very broad. In thinking about this broad spectrum, CASW is fully in support of social enterprise as a model in which not-for-profit organizations and foundations can play a vital role in service innovation and partnering with governments and other funders to address social needs and problems in innovative ways. All the solutions to our social problems are not one-size-fits-all or bureaucratic.

As this committee has heard from other presenters, social enterprise offers opportunities for individuals, communities and organizations to leverage social and financial support to meet identified needs. We think a key principle in this process is accountability for the success of social enterprise, with the end being a social good.

With that being said, the Canadian Association of Social Workers does have deep reservations about the overall stated profit motivations behind social investments or finance, including social impact bonds. CASW understands that the intention of these types of social investment is to move forward with pay-for-performance agreements, which would see public dollars cover premiums to businesses that invest in social services, which provide, if you will, a return on investment. The CASW notes that the experiences and results in jurisdictions that have adopted for-profit models of human service delivery in areas such as health care, corrections and delivery of social assistance are not encouraging.

One problem that has arisen in for-profit health care, for instance, is what's sometimes referred to as cream skimming. Profit seekers will address the needs that promise the quickest and largest return on investment, thereby diverting financial and human resources, as well as policy-makers' attention away from the needs that don't have such readily available solutions.

The great moral and ethical challenges that we face as a country—and these include health for all, the elimination of poverty, the full inclusion of our indigenous peoples—are public policy questions in which governments and elected officials must take the lead. It is our view that business has an important but subsidiary role to play in addressing these challenges. The responsibility of the business sector includes paying their fair share of taxes to underwrite the cost of necessary public services provided in public and not-for-profit ways.

We have mountains of research now that indicate that highly unequal societies are not healthy ones. They have a lower quality of life. The social determinants of health literature indicates this as well. We know there are negative social outcomes for high levels of economic and social inequality. One of the best-known sources in this regard is the work of Wilkinson and Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone.

Measuring the impact of long-term public investment can be done in our quest for a more equal society in which tax burdens and responsibility for service delivery is shared broadly. We worry that social impact bonds that have a three- or four-year investment cycle may not always get us where we want to go. Our association, the Canadian Association of Social Workers, contends that longer-term public investment in addressing the root causes of social distress might ultimately have more impact in addressing social problems and creating opportunities for individuals and a better quality of life for all.

In conclusion, I'd like to make three recommendations, and maybe we can get into some more discussion later. First, the Government of Canada should pool financial resources to fund projects that show promise as innovative and more effective ways of meeting social needs. Second, the Government of Canada should make a binding commitment that existing public services provided by community organizations and not-for-profit organizations will not be reduced in order to engage in social investment bonds or other social finance initiatives. Third, the Government of Canada, working cooperatively with the provinces and territories, should develop a social care act with broad principles that include need, comprehensiveness, accessibility, fairness, portability, universality, and public and not-for-profit administrations.

We feel these principles would be good guides to ensure transparency and accountability for all our investments, both public and private, in securing a better future for people in Canada.

I think I must be at the end of my time, so I'll wind up there.