Impact of the Desrochers v. Canada case

Transcription

1 Impact of the Desrochers v. Canada case The importance of federal programs for the economic development of OLMCs Presentation by: Yvon Samson November 19, 2010

2 CBDCs (Community Business Development Corporations) Business Development Centres SERVICES: Loans to entrepreneurs; Advice and training for entrepreneurs. CBDCs: Administer SEED and Women in Business programs; Administer HRSDC s independent Labour Program (now a provincial responsibility but eligibility still HRSDC).

3 Community Futures Development Corporations, RDAs-SDRs in NS Regional Development Authorities (RDAs) are responsible for guiding community economic development at the regional level: Nova Scotia Regional Development Authorities; New Brunswick and PEI, these are industry boards and/or RDCs (Enterprise Kent), BADC; Regional Development Associations in Newfoundland and Labrador.

4 Community Futures Development Corporations (RDAs in NS) CFDCs-SDRs-RDAs offer a range of economic development activities aimed at boosting communities capacities so they can carry out projects and plan and implement regional economic development activities.

5 RDÉEs and Acadian and Francophone provincial economic development organizations New Brunswick Nova Scotia Newfoundland and Labrador Prince Edward Island RDÉE-NB, coordinating group for entrepreneurs, e.g. (CENB); CDÉNÉ, RDÉE-NÉ. Francophone chambers of commerce; RDÉE-TNL, regional coordinating groups; RDÉE-IPÉ, Baie Acadienne Development Corporation.

6 Consultation mechanisms - dialogue in place in the Atlantic provinces PEI tripartite collaboration agreements (Human Resources Committee); RÉSEAU 41- Nova Scotia and the Réseau acadien des intervenants en employabilité (RAIE); NB organizations concertation forum; RDÉE Atlantique / ACOA Committee.

7 Community economic development (RDÉE) Community economic development taken in hand and controlled by and for the language community; Empowerment regarding decisions and policy directions specific to the language minority; Ability to define economic development opportunities by and for the language minority.

8 Community economic development PRESUPPOSES: infrastructures, supporting institutions and material resources belonging to the language minority; the leadership and structures necessary for the involvement of the language minority; appropriate economic and financial resources; empowering policies and systems.

9 Community economic development Capacities or the lack thereof are reflected in people, the economy, the environment, culture, and the attitudes and attributes of the language community (OLMCs); HOLISTIC APPROACH.

10 Substantive equality??? Challenges!!! Resistance to changeover to separate entities (duality): Section 25: Federal agencies and departments delegate economic development responsibilities and/or other responsibilities to third parties - CBDCs, RDAs and others; Most CBDCs-RDAs in NS, PEI & NL are made up of a majority of unilingual Anglophones (directors and staff, except in New Brunswick).

11 Substantive equality??? Challenges!! In some regions third party agencies offer only elementary advisory services in French (reception), and business plans are mostly written in English because the consultants are unilingual Anglophones; Where there are bilingual staff, the French can be of doubtful quality.

12 Substantive equality??? Challenges!! CBDC/RDA boards, with a majority of Anglophone directors, decide on: Recipients of loans; Hiring of staff; Decisions relating to delivery of programs and services; WITHOUT in-depth knowledge of the minority language community or an appreciation of its needs.

13 Substantive equality??? Challenges!! Confusion regarding the aim of section 41 Reports to Parliament regarding Part VII by departments and agencies include funded Anglophone bodies such as Simcoe CBDC and not just the language minority; Except in NB, empowerment and funding decisions and/or initiatives are determined by the English language majority in the Atlantic provinces.

14 Substantive equality??? Challenges!! Reports to Parliament Section 41-NS Anglophone groups are listed as having received funding for the development and vitality of the Acadian community simply because that they are present in the territory. E.g. Southwest RDA and Digby, Yarmouth CBDC where there are a few Acadian board members. Is this development and vitality of the Francophone minority? Some projects are in entirely Anglophone communities led by entirely Anglophone groups, e.g. Ski Ben Eon club.

15 Substantive equality??? Challenges!! ARTICLE 25 Staff of third parties are more often than not Anglophone; Where bilingual staff are on duty, they mostly work in English; If a bilingual staff member leaves, managers sometimes do not think to replace them with another bilingual person forget the obligation, because they hire on the basis of skills, in which language ability may not be included; Continually claiming French-language services from third parties.

16 Substantive equality??? Challenges!! PROBLEM AREAS: Can better take charge of our development by creating separate entities though with few means (such as CALDECH); The governance structures of the majority must be changed to accommodate the minority; If you make a fuss, you risk losing your funding.

17 Substantive equality??? Challenges!! PROBLEM AREAS: - For some managers in the federal government, French-language services are limited to communications with the public and little or no structures to encourage entrepreneurship and current and potential Francophone entrepreneurs

18 CONCLUSION Few or no structural changes to allow the Francophone language minority to make use of existing or separate economic tools since the Caldech decision

19 CONCLUSION Discussions are taking place, such as the RDÉE-Atlantique ACOA committee and Service Canada, to identify problem areas and explore solutions (definition of clientele covered by section 41 and shortcomings in third-party services, etc.)

20 CONCLUSION Few financial resources and economic development tools for Francophones to sustain activities. E.g.: The budget allocated to the CDÉNÉ was reduced in , job of person in charge of tourism file was cut Reason: Tourism not a priority (ACOA-NS) but a development need identified by the community Yet: funds for Atlantic Canada Tourism and Commission du tourisme acadien du Canada atlantique

21 CONCLUSION Few financial resources and economic development tools for Francophones to sustain activities. E.g.: No capital access funds managed by Francophones, these being entirely with CBDCs and administered (except in NB) by mainly Anglophone boards of directors

22 CONCLUSION Few financial resources and economic development tools for Francophones to sustain activities. E.g.: Little or no management of programs controlled and delivered by Francophone and Acadian groups in NS, PEI, NL aimed at young people, such as youth in business, additional capital, independent workers, SEED, women in business, etc.; currently these programs are administered by Anglophone or mixed CBDCs on behalf of the federal government

23 CONCLUSION Government departments and agencies are resisting replacing existing structures with separate structures : Financial constraints? Ignorance of responsibilities (41)? Fear of duplication? Fear of repercussions on existing organizations?

24 CONCLUSION Effects on daily work of RDÉE: Continually requesting financial and material resources to meet needs No guarantee of funding to meet needs identified Staff turnover