Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for inviting the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, or FCFA, to appear before the committee today.
My name is Marie-France Kenny, and joining me is our director of community and government liaison, Diane Côté. We are here today on behalf of 2.6 million French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec, across 9 provinces and 3 territories.
The FCFA wanted to contribute to the committee's study because we are rather concerned. Allow me to explain. As we see it, a push is currently on to adopt social finance in a slew of government programs and initiatives, without regard for a range of considerations that are of the utmost importance to our communities. I want to make clear that we aren't here to argue against new methods or approaches but, rather, to add a nuanced and vital perspective to the committee's study.
I referred to the push to adopt social finance, and now I'd like to explain what I mean by that. The perception is that the government is trialling the model in a very limited and exploratory manner through pilot projects. The reality, however, is quite different.
The fact of the matter is that Employment and Social Development Canada and other federal institutions have already changed how they deliver their grants and contributions programs, bringing them more in line with the social finance model. The federal budget, tabled the day before yesterday, even includes a social finance accelerator initiative. Social finance has gone from an exploratory measure to a virtual fait accompli.
I'll give you an example. The official-language minority communities literacy and essential skills initiative is part of the Roadmap for Canada's Official Languages 2013-2018. But when Employment and Social Development Canada incorporated the $7.5-million investment under the roadmap into its broader programming, things went awry.
On the one hand, in its request for proposals, the department stipulated that the project had to have a national scope and that 20% of the funding had to come from sources other than the federal government. On the other hand, the request for proposals shows that the department has lost sight of the relationship to the roadmap. The department found it perfectly acceptable to say that it would prioritize projects targeting under-represented groups, which included official language minority communities, as well as aboriginals and immigrants. We are talking about a program provided for under the roadmap for official language minority communities.
The problem, when you put the focus on large-scale projects, is that organizations serving francophone and Acadian communities are shut out because their target populations are too small to achieve impressive wide-reaching results. When you put the focus on working with a private sector partner, you fail to take into account the difference between majority and minority settings. Minority francophone and Acadian communities don't have access to as large of a funding pool as majority communities.
It's important to understand that a key condition to working with the private sector through social finance initiatives is the existence of a critical mass. Simply ask big telecom companies how they would benefit from extending cell phone coverage or high-speed Internet access to rural or remote areas, such as the Port au Port peninsula, in Newfoundland, or northern Alberta.
A private sector company will usually view a project that can make a meaningful difference to a French-speaking community of 2,000 residents as too local or not profitable enough.
If you want to talk about innovation, in our communities, we have seen francophones setting up social enterprises to fill the void left by the private sector. That was the case with Baudoux Communications, a business that opened up where I'm from, Saskatchewan, to provide Internet access in regions where service was lacking.
Official language minority communities will feel the impact of an approach where requests for proposals are based on major projects and private sector contributions. The government runs the risk of creating an environment where, instead of having access to French-language services that fit their needs, francophone communities will, at best, receive bilingual services delivered by majority language organizations, or even services delivered by Quebec-based organizations with little understanding of our communities' needs.
Those kinds of results will do nothing to meet federal institutions' obligation under Part VII of the Official Languages Act to take positive measures to enhance the vitality of English and French linguistic minority communities, and to assist their development.
That obligation seems to have been forgotten in the push to implement social finance.
But as the saying goes, we've seen this movie before. ln 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada issued a ruling in a case regarding support for francophone economic development in Ontario's Simcoe County. At issue was the fact that the government-run Economic Development Corporation of North Simcoe offered identical services in both languages to majority and minority alike, and the francophone community did not use those services because they didn't fit its specific needs. Rather, the francophone community had set up a community economic development corporation, CALDECH, which was having trouble getting funding from Industry Canada. ln its ruling, the Supreme Court stated that in the spirit of part IV of the Official Languages Act, the pursuit of substantive equality between both official languages could require, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, distinct measures tailored to the needs and the specific reality of the minority.
ln the rush to implement social finance, these principles seem to have been forgotten. What seems to have prevailed is a one-size-fits-all approach, a may-the-strongest-win approach. There has been little attention to, and little interest in, how this was going to impact francophone minority communities.
As I said earlier, given the realities of French-speaking and Acadian communities, our social, cultural, economic and linguistic challenges are primarily being addressed by not-for-profit agencies and institutions that are run by and for community members. We do have some cooperatives and social enterprises, but they certainly aren't the norm.
The government may say to us that this is an excellent opportunity to innovate and try new approaches, and that may be true. If I may, though, I'd like to paraphrase a passage from a report by MC Consultants for Industry Canada regarding funding diversification and the entrepreneurial culture within community agencies. Basically, the passage says this:
In the movement to further integrate entrepreneurial culture in the partnership model, it's essential that organizations stay true to the mandate for which they were created.
We are, in no way, closed to all forms of social finance or innovation, on the contrary. Who could object to solutions that allow for optimal impact and outcomes? All we are asking for is tailored solutions that reflect our unique issues and needs, rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. For that very reason, we have been calling for an impact assessment on social finance and minority communities, for a year now.
At the very least, some crucial questions need to be asked. How can very large-scale projects, delivered by majority community organizations, take into account the specific needs of our communities, especially in areas where those minority language populations are very small? How were the unique needs of our communities taken into account before the programs delivered by federal institutions were overhauled, and how were our communities consulted about that overhaul? How can these social finance issues be fixed, so that French-speaking communities and the organizations that serve them can benefit under this approach?
In conclusion, I would like to recommend that the government conduct an impact assessment in order to (1) build an inventory of the approaches used in our communities; (2) assess community capacity for social partnerships and, where appropriate, establish a pool of prospective partners; (3) identify the conditions for success, as well as the obstacles and challenges around the successful use of social partnerships in francophone and Acadian minority communities; (4) determine the conditions in which social finance is compatible with the government's official languages obligations; and (5) consult with communities and local service organizations on how to build capacity, and make policy recommendations to guide the federal government and communities in implementing social finance.
Thank you. I would now be happy to answer your questions
in both official languages.