Governance within the Social Economy Movement: the cases of Quebec and Manitoba 1
OUTLINE -Historical evolution of the structure -Current structure -Impacts: policy -Impacts: service delivery -Summary -Recommendations 2
QUEBEC: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION Key moment: 1996 Summit on the Economy and employment Bouchard government convenes civil society Taskforce reaches consensus, common definition, recommendations Taskforce becomes Chantier 3
QUEBEC: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION Pre 1996: prior consolidation 100+ years of coops, unification under CCQ Prior social economy summits Women’s movement: Bread and Roses ‘Economic militantism’ of social movements 4
QUEBEC: CURRENT STRUCTURE Chantier: inclusive, representative, formalized governance structure ‘electoral college’ reps from various types of organizations regional reps Tensions with ‘sub-sectors’ : coops, social movements 5
QUEBEC: IMPACTS: POLICY Chantier gives SE sector single voice Legitimacy and recognition for SE Entrenchment in political process 6
QUEBEC: IMPACTS: POLICY Support for SE from existing bodies: CLDs Preference for SE in service delivery Legislative reform: coops 7
QUEBEC: IMPACTS: SERVICE DELIVERY Services to SE sector delivered by SE sector, mainly thru Chantier Finance responds to recommendations made by Taskforce Addresses weak link for SE sector RISQ Chantier Trust 8
QUEBEC: IMPACTS: SERVICE DELIVERY Technical assistance CSMO-ESAC: comprehensive labor market development RISQ Public, stakeholder engagement Chantier’s unification of sector Common definition Legitimization and recognition of sector by public thru work of Chantier 9
QUEBEC: IMPACTS: SERVICE DELIVERY Learning, education and research University-SE sector partnership research: ARUC, RQRP CIRIEC Canada Chantier’s international role: GESQ, RIPESS, international exchanges Market development “valeurs ajoutees” Purchasing portals Lobbying for procurement: City of Montreal 10
MANITOBA: HISTORICAL EVOLUTION 1999: Doer’s NDP government CED activists, practitioners integrate government: Kostyra, MacKinnon Greater legitimacy of CED Greater access to ‘halls of power’ Prior organization: Choices 11
MANITOBA: CURRENT STRUCTURE CED sector less cohesive than in Quebec ‘sub-sectors’ have their own reps: Francophone, Aboriginal, Coops, Mutuals Organizations around specific campaigns, advocacy work: Right to Housing, Raise the Rates, make Poverty History, Manitoba Food Charter, etc 12
MANITOBA: CURRENT STRUCTURE CCEDNet Manitoba: one attempt at unification Diverse membership Representative at policy level The ‘glue’ that connects other policy, advocacy campaigns 13
MANITOBA: IMPACTS: POLICY Community and Economic Development Committee of Cabinet (CEDC) CEDC Secretariat CED Framework CED Lens 14
MANITOBA: IMPACTS: POLICY Core funding to CED organizations Creation of other bodies: NRCs Financing: CED Tax Credit 15
MANITOBA: IMPACTS: SERVICE DELIVERY Channeled thru partnerships of Govt and CED sector Financing Delivered by Government: WPA, NA!, core funding of CEDOs, Loan financing Tax Credit Technical Assistance CED Technical Assistance Program (CEDTAS) 16
MANITOBA: IMPACTS: SERVICE DELIVERY Public, stakeholder engagement Advocacy, policy campaigns CCEDNet publications, newsletters, events Learning, education and research CED Training Intermediary CCEDNet conferences, workshops, courses Research: CED and New Economy, MRA-TIAC, participation in CSERP 17
MANITOBA: IMPACTS: SERVICE DELIVERY Market development Social Purchasing Portal LITE 18
SUMMARY Quebec SE sector more cohesive than in Manitoba Quebec: better financing tools Quebec: greater role for SE sector in service delivery Quebec: SE sector more central role in policy co-construction Responsive government, key in both Both, prior organization of sector led to advent of responsive government 19
RECOMMENDATIONS More unification needed in Manitoba A formalized, official channel for dialogue with government Importance of developing strong financing mechanisms run by sector Even incipient organizing and advocacy is effective; continue these efforts 20