Authors Cathy Barr and Susanna Kislenko.

(Senior Advisor of Research & Data at Imagine Canada) and (Director of The Founder Leadership Research Lab at the University of Oxford, and Adjunct Professor at 杏吧原创 University) have published a guide, . The report () offers guidance for building effective boards, managing founder transitions and avoiding Founder鈥檚 Syndrome, which occurs when founders retain too much control over their organization. They interviewed 34 founders and board members of founder-led organizations, but both researchers have decades of experience working with many more founders around the world 鈥� and Susanna wrote her PhD dissertation about Founder鈥檚 Syndrome in both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors. The two spoke to PANL Perspectives about why the sector needs this guide now and what they hope to accomplish, given how difficult it is to discuss issues with many founders and boards of directors in Canada.

What inspired both of you to write now?

Susanna Kislenko: I was inspired to study how boards of directors could have a stronger effect on some of the negative consequences of Founder鈥檚 Syndrome. But if you really want to know how Cathy and I first started, it was right after the WE Charity scandal happened 鈥� and there were larger questions being asked. Cathy, what do you think?

Cathy Barr: Yes, totally. We didn’t even know each other before we came together to work on this project. We were connected by a mutual acquaintance on Imagine Canada’s board. With this guide, we want to look at how board members — in particular board chairs — can mitigate the impact of Founder鈥檚 Syndrome. Susanna is the expert on that. My background is more about governance and Imagine Canada鈥檚 . We got talking about how if everybody just followed the standards, then Founder鈥檚 Syndrome and possibly bigger scandals shouldn’t happen.

What do you hope people will get out of ?

Cathy Barr: We wrote the guide for both founders and board members to understand what good governance and leadership look like.

The guide isn’t in your face about Founder鈥檚 Syndrome. That鈥檚 on purpose, because a lot of people who have Founder鈥檚 Syndrome don鈥檛 know it, or wouldn鈥檛 necessarily seek out a guide for how to deal with it, so we focused on good governance, succession planning and things that, if you do them well, will mitigate the impact of Founder鈥檚 Syndrome. –Cathy Barr

Susanna Kislenko: 鈥娾�奣he biggest finding from our study was that board members don’t know what their responsibilities actually are and what their role is supposed to be, or what they’re supposed to be doing in their role. But at the same time, founders without Founder鈥檚 Syndrome — so the founders who do want to set up good succession practices — also don’t know often. This might be their first organization they started, but even if it isn’t, there aren鈥檛 many places you can go to really understand how do you set it up? How do you set up your organization for long-term success from the governance perspective? There’s not that many places you can go. So, we’re, first of all, hoping people will feel less alone.

Second, we’re hoping that people will start conversations, will ask questions, about governance and succession policies that need to be put in place within their organizations.

Third, we want to empower board members. Many board members come into an organization because they’re passionate about the mission, or the founder, or both. But, at the end of the day, they might become disillusioned because they’re not supported in their roles. This guide tries to empower them. –Susanna Kislenko

Cathy Barr: 鈥楨mpower鈥� is an important word. Sometimes, founders purposely try to make sure that board members don’t know what the board should be doing. The guide fills a knowledge gap about the real duties and responsibilities of board members, and also hopefully, gives them confidence to speak up, to challenge the founder, or to rein in a founder who鈥檚 behaving inappropriately 鈥� and ultimately to empower board members to do the right thing. For example, why didn’t the board exercise their power before the WE Charity scandal? More broadly, why are board chairs at some organizations afraid to discuss succession planning with 80-year-old founders? It鈥檚 ridiculous, but it’s common.

After the Hockey Canada fiasco and WE Charity scandal a few years ago, did you see major changes in leadership or governance in the nonprofit sector?

Read “The Hockey Canada Fiasco,” by Yves Savoie, for a review of the serious lessons learned about nonprofit governance and boards of directors, issues that are still relevant today: /panl/2022/the-hockey-canada-fiasco-governance-lessons-for-nonprofits-in-canada.

Cathy Barr: I don’t think much changed on a grand scale. There were specific organizations that made changes. Well, I know of at least one, and my guess is there have been others. Imagine Canada saw a bit of an upsurge in interest in the . I think, though, that part of the challenge was those events happened at a very challenging time in the sector, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The scandals did create a lot of ripples in the short run, but I think those ripples dissipated fairly quickly.

My interpretation is that it’s the pressure of the urgent over the important. However, if leaders actually got their houses in order, they鈥檇 maybe be in a better position to deal with short-term challenges.

It takes a special leader to pull back and say, 鈥淣o, we need to do this, because this is important.鈥� Sometimes it鈥檚 a CEO. Sometimes it鈥檚 a board chair. There has to be a champion who believes in that sort of thing, who sees the value. –Cathy Barr

Susanna Kislenko: These sorts of questions should be weaved through all levels of education that’s about leadership in this sector. The whole reason we did this study, the whole reason we did this guide, was to say, you’re not powerless. Both as a founder and as a board member, you’re not powerless, and there’s a lot that can be done, but it has to be intentional, and it has to be consistent.

Cathy Barr: And it’s not easy. 鈥奍 mean, most board members are volunteers, and they didn’t join the board to get into a drag-it-out fight with the founder. A leader really has to believe in this stuff.

and are on LinkedIn. Read their article, “,” in The Philanthropist Journal, in which they summarize their research and list common indicators of founder鈥檚 syndrome.

Investing in regulation

The Carney government is preoccupied, as Canadians expect it to be, with protecting the country鈥檚 sovereignty, fighting US tariffs and reducing internal trade barriers. The also committed the federal government to a new fiscal discipline and improving public sector productivity by deploying technology. This means adjusting how we do things and investing in new technologies to save money and deliver better results.

Investment in modernizing the regulation of Canadian charities is a relatively easy, but impactful, way to realize cost savings for government, make administration easier for charities, deter fraud and increase transparency and understanding of this important sector. All Canadians have a stake in this, even those who haven鈥檛 thought much about charity regulation.

Canadians expect charities to be administered and regulated with integrity regardless of whether they have substantial or limited resources.

The 85,500 registered Canadian charities are enormously diverse. They include large, government-affiliated organizations (such as universities and hospitals), grantmaking foundations, and social service, arts, environmental, faith-based and community organizations, among many others. What they all have in common is governance by volunteer boards of directors and a requirement to provide public benefit. Collectively, the sector accounts for 1 in 10 full-time jobs and holds $503 billion in assets; the 11,000 foundations alone have assets of $142 billion. While these aggregate numbers are large, the reality is that 40% of charities are small, operating with one or no staff.

Some of the challenges, including fraud

The headquarters of the Canada Revenue Agency. The Charities Directorate, a component of the CRA, has oversight responsibility for charities, while the Department of Finance sets overarching policies and regulations under the Income Tax Act.

Charities are exempt from income taxes and many other taxes, and can issue tax receipts for donations. Donations are a vital source of revenue for charities, particularly when government funding is reduced. The tax credit, which is very generous in Canada, is a significant 鈥榯ax expenditure鈥� 鈥� about $4 billion per year that the federal government chooses not to collect to incentivize private giving. In effect, all Canadians support charities, whether directly through donations or indirectly through the charitable tax credit. Canadians thus expect charities to be administered and regulated with integrity regardless of whether they have substantial or limited resources.

The Charities Directorate, a component of the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), has oversight responsibility for charities, while the Department of Finance sets overarching policies and regulations under the Income Tax Act. The Charities Directorate registers organizations for charitable status, administers relevant regulations, provides guidance and education, monitors the activities of charities, audits for non-compliance, and can issue sanctions or revoke charitable status for those found non-compliant. All charities must file an annual tax return (T3010) with the Charities Directorate, which becomes public information. To ensure that charities direct their resources to charitable purposes, they are required to annually disburse 5% of their assets (not used for charitable purposes), a requirement known as the Disbursement Quota (DQ). While operating charities readily meet this requirement, the DQ is more significant for grantmaking foundations that should be disbursing millions of dollars each year.

The Charities Directorate appropriately assumes that most charities want to comply with the regulations. It takes an education-first approach to assist charities (especially small ones) in understanding how to comply and assumes a risk-based approach to auditing those that might be offside. Canadians expect the CRA to address compliance issues in a timely and effective manner to maintain trust and confidence in the charitable sector.

Compared to other high-income countries, Canada has been distinctively prone to abuse: tax shelters involving fraudulent charitable gift arrangements have cost Canadian taxpayers over $4.5 billion, and this is only the portion that have been caught.

While the vast majority of charities are prudent and trustworthy, charities are also subject to mischief and outright fraud. This is mainly due to unscrupulous individuals who take advantage of charities for purposes of overly aggressive tax planning or avoidance, providing private benefits to themselves, financing for-profit operations through charities, or sending funds offshore. They may do so by setting up networks of 鈥榮helf鈥� charities that circulate funds among themselves, which is hard to trace, by inflating the value of donated goods and issuing tax credits worth more than the actual donations, or by a variety of other devious schemes. Compared to other high-income countries, Canada has been distinctively prone to such abuse: tax shelters involving fraudulent charitable gift arrangements have cost Canadian taxpayers over $4.5 billion, and this is only the portion that have been caught. Both the federal government and the charitable sector have an interest in correcting this because abuse defrauds taxpayers, penalizes charities who might lose donations or other support to these bad actors, and erodes public confidence in both government and charities.

An underlying problem is that the Charities Directorate still operates in the paper world of a generation ago, because previous governments did not invested in making it a digitally-enabled regulator akin to those of the UK or Australia. An investment in technology would save money and deliver better results.

Solutions for regulation, education and enforcement

In March, 2025, the Charity Insights Canada Project (CICP) surveyed charities about their experiences with filing Form T3010. Read a summary of the survey results: /cicp-pcpob/2024/navigating-form-t3010-insights-into-challenges-and-strategies-for-charities-in-canada-2

The number one compliance challenge for charities is filing the annual tax form (CICP, March 2025). The T3010 form can be completed online: 20% of charities complete and file it online. But, 80% download the file, fill it in manually and mail or fax it to CRA, mainly because the online system is so clunky that it is easier to submit by hand. Omissions or mistakes made by the person (often a volunteer) completing the form thus cannot be automatically detected before filing. The Charities Directorate staff then have to key in the information from about 68,000 organizations, which is costly, takes a long time, and results in a multitude of additional errors. This is sheer madness in a digital-AI era.

Charities should be easily able 鈥� and be incentivized 鈥� to file their annual tax return electronically, assuming appropriate technology supports doing so. This would fix the enormous inefficiencies with the filing system which result in extensive inaccuracies in the data reported. Digital filing could give rise to a cottage industry providing software assistance, making this process much easier for small charities reliant on volunteers. The Charities Directorate has begun to more proactively with some certified third-party software and easier sign-in to the CRA account, but the underlying digital infrastructure remains an issue.

Better technology would help the Charities Directorate ensure that foundations are meeting their annual 5% Disbursement Quota. The potential extent of under-performance by foundations is not transparent and often difficult to assess because many do not provide the relevant data or proper calculation of the DQ on the T3010, and filers are not prompted to correct the form before submission. With digital filing supported by better technology, 鈥楴otices of Filing鈥� could be automatically generated, akin to the notices provided for individual and corporate filers, so foundations can self-correct and the Directorate could better monitor any non-compliance.

Read Jean-Marc Mangin’s take on the T3010 and data-collection and data-analysis issues — and the role of government in our sector. He’s the President & CEO of Philanthropic Foundations Canada.

The Charities Directorate could also better educate boards of directors about their governance responsibilities related to compliance and be better able to catch fraud. The existing system does not allow the Directorate to easily update a charity鈥檚 list of directors (which normally change every few years). Consequently, they miss out on providing educational compliance resources to new directors, helping them to fulfil their responsibilities more effectively. It is also difficult to identify multiple charities that are run by the same set of directors, which is a red flag for mischief afoot.

Although people who have been involved in gifting scams or convicted of other relevant crimes involving financial dishonesty are ineligible to serve as board members or charity CEOs, it is difficult for CRA to identify them once a charity is registered.

Having the names of directors input electronically with the annual filing would provide the Charities Directorate with an up-to-date list of ineligible individuals.

In addition to the filing database, the Directorate鈥檚 other legacy computer systems reportedly can鈥檛 communicate with each other or with those in other government departments. Consequently, when a charity is being investigated for serious non-compliance, it can take months to revoke its status and publish an official notice, allowing the offending charity to keep operating and taking donations from an unsuspecting public. When a charity applies for a contract, grant or contribution from a line department, that department cannot obtain information on its financial situation directly from CRA. Rather, it collects such information anew from the applicant charity, which simply creates extra work for the charity and is costly to the department.

Canada could take lessons from Australia when it created a new digital-first charity regulator in 2012 using e-filing and the data-sharing principle of 鈥渞eport once, use often.鈥�

Small changes will lead to large impacts

With a relatively small investment in better technology for charity regulation, the Government of Canada can spend less and allow charities and philanthropy to invest more.

Smart investment can pay off in another way that multiples the value of a digital-first regulator: additional public and private investment could create a collaborative university-sector Charity Data Lab, the equivalent of the Business Data Lab hosted by the Chamber of Commerce. Such a partner Lab would provide real-time, future-focused insights on the sector that help governments, other stakeholders and citizens better understand and engage with charities and be more intentional and impactful with their philanthropy.

Beyond the benefits that would flow from improving the digital capacity of the charity regulator, an organizational realignment could further enhance its work at virtually no cost. While federal regulation of charities hinges on its constitutional authority for taxation, the Charities Directorate is an odd fit with the much larger taxation part of CRA, which is focused on collecting revenues and ensuring people pay taxes, rather than supporting organizations that do not.

When the main taxation part of CRA gets the sniffles due to an issue with tax collection, the Charities Directorate catches pneumonia: it is overshadowed and distracted from its work.

The expertise and specialized work of the Charities Directorate could be improved by carving it out from CRA to be a separate agency under the Income Tax Act and mandate of the Minister of Finance and National Revenue (and Secretary of State for CRA). This follows a similar logic to the creation in 2004 of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) separate from Health Canada over concerns that the federal government lacked the capacity to effectively respond to public health threats.

Canada鈥檚 charitable sector is similarly underserved and invisible in public policy because it is hidden away in the tax agency. Such a move (accompanied by legislative amendments) could also loosen some of the rigid privacy restrictions of the Income Tax Act that appropriately apply to individuals and corporations but are not relevant to charities, thus allowing data sharing across departments and making charity regulation more transparent.

relies on people coming together to build strong, engaged inclusive communities 鈥� places with a sense of belonging where people want to live and work. Governments at all levels have a part in incentivizing and supporting a vibrant civil society as one means of attracting global talent, thereby enhancing the country鈥檚 productivity. With a recession looming, Canadians will depend more than ever on a wide array of charities and other community organizations that will have to be even more resilient and innovative. As with the private sector, efficient, responsive and effective regulation matters. With a relatively small investment in better technology for charity regulation, the Government of Canada can spend less and allow charities and philanthropy to invest more.

Dr. Susan D. Phillips is a Professor Emerita in the MPNL program, and researches comparative public policy for the third sector, philanthropy and nonprofits, and public management. In 2023, she published 鈥淧hilanthropic Response to Disasters: Gifts, Givers and Consequences,鈥� with by Alexandra Williamson and Diana Leat. Read Susan鈥檚 full bio.

Charity law in Canada innovates at a glacial pace, but reform is essential to address modern problems in our sector. We can’t rely on the 400-year-old Statute of Elizabeth 1601 to address 21st-century issues. To further a reform process, we must have a better understanding of what’s happening now, but that鈥檚 not possible with the existing rules of confidentiality at Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). For instance, while 77% of charity applications were approved by CRA in 2022-23, we have zero visibility into why the other 23% didn’t succeed. Is this level of secrecy still serving the public interest?

Something needs to change.

In an essay, 鈥淲hat We Don鈥檛 Know Does Hurt Us,鈥� for the Pemsel Case Foundation, , CEO of the Muttart Foundation, provides compelling arguments for how increased transparency could strengthen the sector. He looks at what could change in terms of Registration and Compliance within the Charities Directorate, a group within CRA, and what could change in the Appeals Branch of CRA, including whether CRA鈥檚 requirement for secrecy should be waived in certain cases when CRA itself is accused of improper behaviour.

Click here for the 17-page pdf: What We Don鈥檛 Know Does Hurt Us, By Bob Wyatt, 2024

Banner photo is courtesy of Michel Rathwell.

Here’s a recording of the full event:

Panellists

Jennifer Brennan joined in 2018 and serves as Director of Canada Programs. She leads a dedicated team engaged in collaborative programming across Canada involving multiple sectors with Indigenous youth and their communities. As part of the Mastercard Foundation鈥檚 Senior Leadership team, she engages with peers and teams throughout Africa in service of the Young Africa Works strategy and youth-led transformation. Before joining the Foundation, Brennan led public policy negotiations on behalf of Indigenous Nations, advancing key issues, including education and land rights. As a strategic advisor and facilitator, she worked within and for Indigenous communities and organizations throughout Canada for twenty years. She also served as Chief of Staff at the Assembly of First Nations.

Rebecca Darwent is a philanthropic advisor and an internationally recognized expert in philanthropy and community-led initiatives. She has led multimillion-dollar investments in equity, health and education — and is currently a Senior Advisor to , focussing on raising awareness of and funding for collaboratives, specifically those that are community-led. As a co-founder of the , she led fundraising, community engagement and advocacy that resulted in a historic $200 million commitment to Black philanthropy by the Canadian government, ensuring sustainable resources are available for Black communities to thrive, engage in solution-making and create lasting impact. Darwent is a dedicated volunteer currently serving on the Board of Directors of the Foundation for Black Communities, The Philanthropy Workshop Canada, and Laidlaw Foundation.

Michael D. Layton joined the , at Grand Valley State University, in the US, in 2020, as the W.K. Kellogg Community Philanthropy Chair, the nation鈥檚 first endowed chair focused on community philanthropy. He brings a wealth of experience to this role, including his work as a researcher, teacher, director, advocate and consultant. He’s worked closely with a mix of community philanthropy organizations throughout the Americas, and brings to his position a nuanced understanding of the unique challenges and capacities of community philanthropy to act as a catalyst in promoting community-led development and in strengthening the local context for philanthropy. Layton began his career as the founder and director of the New Kensington Community Development Corporation, in the Philadelphia neighbourhood where he was born and raised — and founded and directed the Philanthropy and Civil Society Project at the Instituto Tecnol贸gico Aut贸nomo de M茅xico (ITAM), in Mexico City.

Kevin McCort is President and CEO of the . With more than 30 years of service to the nonprofit sector in Canada and around the world, he puts community at the heart of his work. Since 2013, McCort has led Vancouver Foundation through a period of significant transformation, with a sharpened focus on donor service, community-inspired grant-making and world-class endowment management. Starting in 2015, he led his team in a transformation of the Foundation鈥檚 approach to community granting, with a new focus on seeking systemic change by addressing root causes of pressing social, cultural and environmental issues. McCort is a member of the MPNL program鈥檚 Advisory Council and is co-chair of the federal government’s Advisory Committee on the Charitable Sector.

Dr. Susan Phillips, the former Graduate Supervisor of the MPNL program and Professor in 杏吧原创’s School of Public Policy & Administration, moderated the panel. Her research focuses on comparative public policy for the third sector; philanthropy and nonprofits; and public management. She published a book, 鈥淧hilanthropic Response to Disasters: Gifts, Givers and Consequences,鈥� with Alexandra Williamson and Diana Leat. Her current research includes looking at justice-oriented models of philanthropy.

Banner photo is courtesy of Ugne Vasyliute.

鈥淥ur firm prefers to support 鈥榖oots on the ground’,鈥� the president of a major investment firm told me in turning down our funding proposal for an expanded graduate education serving the philanthropic and nonprofit sector. While disappointed, I applauded this interest in supporting service-providing organizations.

Small, grassroots charities dedicated to causes outside the 鈥榤ainstream鈥� have been hit the hardest by the steady decline in the number of donors who give modest or small amounts (, 2023). In particular, B3 (Black-led, -serving and -focused) organizations historically have received a minuscule amount of philanthropic funding, as revealed by the (on which the MPNL program collaborated).

The Essential Contributions to the Charity Ecosystem

In a 2023 op-ed in The Globe and Mail, Lisa Wolverton (President of the Philanthropy Workshop Canada) admonished philanthropy to change: 鈥淐haritable donations must go directly to communities. . . It鈥檚 time more donors put funds directly into the hands of local leaders, giving them crucial decision-making power.鈥�

I agree. But, with an addendum 鈥� that may not be a popular one.

Community-based, service-providing organizations are part of a larger ecosystem or, in business language, they’re part of and depend upon a 鈥榮upply chain鈥� that provides a wide range of vital inputs and supports. As with an environmental ecosystem, the charitable/social purpose one has multiple niches, each of which makes distinctive contributions. But, these niche parts of the ecosystem are often invisible to those, including donors, who don’t work in this sector. To name a few of these essential contributions:

• Umbrella and membership organizations and communities of practice facilitate information sharing, so organizations better appreciate what works and what doesn鈥檛, and thus, organizations don鈥檛 have to 鈥榬einvent wheels.鈥�
• Universities and colleges provide professional education and training that help local leaders and employees of community-based groups be more effective in their work and build more vibrant, sustainable organizations.
• Infrastructure organizations, such as , and advocacy groups, such as , lead collective action and advocacy that help local organizations bring about social change.
• Other infrastructure organizations and coalitions are assisting small nonprofits to navigate the digital transformation and make better use of data, leading to more efficient and effective administration and service delivery.
• Community-serving foundations, like the , and place-based community foundations convene and support local leadership and inform key stakeholders about community.
• Research projects, such as 杏吧原创 University鈥檚 Charity Insights Canada Project (CICP) and the surveys conducted by national and provincial infrastructure organizations, help community nonprofits and the broader sector understand trends that directly affect their work.

The ‘Boots on the Ground’ Need a Ground, Not to Mention an Infrastructure

Canadian philanthropy tends to overlook this supporting infrastructure or doesn鈥檛 appreciate the potential return on investment in it, and thus starves it of funding. This has negative consequences for those with 鈥榖oots on the ground鈥�, as they miss out on sources of professional development and leadership training, learning for innovation, and collaborative efforts for social change.

My case isn’t to divert support from community-based charities and nonprofits, particularly from those focused on causes and communities that are marginalized or historically excluded. Rather, we also need to recognize the value of and direct support to the broader infrastructure for the sector 鈥� for collective action and learning, advocacy, digital transformation, and yes, for education and research. Such funding doesn’t need to detract from that which flows to local communities but can amplify its impact.

Foundations, corporations and philanthropists making major contributions are the likely investors in this infrastructure. However, many don鈥檛 like to support advocacy, networking, research or professional education (except in medicine and business). While more foundations are indicating they support sector capacity-building, it’s often not clear what this means or how deep and advanced such work is. In many cases, the impediment is a lack of knowledge of who does what in the sector ecosystem. Enhancing this understanding may take some work by the sector and by the media who report in such limited ways about it.

While it鈥檚 not popular to seek funding for a university鈥檚 part in this ecosystem, as there are so many other immediate needs and worthwhile organizations, I’ll continue to press the case for the value of investing in education and research for the sector 鈥� as well as the case for supporting other important parts of the sector鈥檚 infrastructure.

Dr. Susan Phillips is on . Banner photo is courtesy of Clay Banks.

Question: How is your work as a performing artist connected to your work as an arts researcher?

Megan Lindsay (as Mary Magdalene) in Opera Atelier鈥檚 “The Resurrection” (2021). Photo by Bruce Zinger.

Lindsay: As a musician, I鈥檓 very aware of the power of nonverbal communication. It has informed my curiosity about the 鈥渁ffective capacity鈥� of words, images, sounds, structures and policies. Affects are the vital forces beyond emotions. They’re the shivers we get from watching or reading something compelling. Affects also flow through policies and structures, and can create barriers. The languages, expectations and institutional norms within the arts sector reproduce barriers for many.

My work deals with understanding how these seemingly intangible forces shape our everyday lives. Specifically, I鈥檓 curious about which systems support or hinder a healthy, safe and exciting artistic landscape. This often involves refuting a homogeneous definition of arts and culture. It involves honest conversations about the lived experiences of artists and of precarity. It involves reflection and a deep honour for a multitude of different cultural expressions.

Q: What have you been researching in terms of post-pandemic arts organizations?

尝颈苍诲蝉补测:听Right now, I’m working on a research project called 鈥淧andemic Preparedness.鈥� It’s a project funded by the British Academy that looks at policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic in the performing arts in G7 countries. I just wrapped up 鈥淏eing Together,鈥� a SSHRC-funded project on how theatre audiences experience the feeling of being in close proximity. My ongoing work looks at how perceptions of 鈥渋mpact鈥� are constructed between artists and mechanisms of public funding. Much of my research is rooted in understanding how artists relate to policies and institutional structures, and how these structures are positioned within civil society. In the wake of the pandemic, this work feels timely. Challenging, but timely. I鈥檓 grateful to be an artist doing this research. My experience has informed my approach.

Q: What has changed in arts organizations in Canada since movements regarding racialized communities, Indigenous people and #MeToo?

Lindsay: First, I want to be transparent about being a white settler working in both academia and classical music. There are people who would be able to speak to this question with more depth than I would, so I’d prefer to take this opportunity to point to the work of those leading change across the sector.

Governance can mean different things to different people. Many interesting organizations,聽like are working on subverting organizational structures and exploring new ideas of artistic leadership. They鈥檙e exploring new ideas for board governance and co-leadership, alongside a rich and innovative artistic season.

I’m on the editorial committee of , a Canadian digital magazine that looks at art and social justice. The perspectives, stories and issues that they’re moving forward are integral to redistributing power in the Canadian arts. Across the landscape, there’s conscious critique about the difference between calls for decolonization and actions toward decolonization.

The 鈥淎 Culture of Exploitation: ‘Reconciliation’ and the Institutions of Canadian Art鈥� touches on how Canadian art institutions have been plagued by tokenism and inequality. They point to a series of Standards of Achievement for the Relationship Between

Indigenous Peoples & Cultural Institutions in Canada. This is a critical piece for anyone working in the arts in Canada.

Q: What are artists doing differently in terms of social issues and spaces?

Artscape, a group of not-for-profit organizations, was at the forefront of creating resources and spaces for artists. It entered into receivership this year.

Lindsay: Artists are increasingly engaged in advocacy, and the civic role of the arts is deeply embedded in practice.

It鈥檚 a complicated time. While we鈥檙e seeing artists de-centering Eurocentric knowledges and ways of being, the arts in Canada are deeply reliant on structures that many seek to subvert. Some artists are reimagining futures, some are embedded in community-building, some are doing the important work of language revitalization. We sing, we dance, we write, we laugh. There isn鈥檛 one homogenous definition of “social” or “impactful.” What’s important to note, though, is the 鈥渄ouble burden鈥� of artists who are encouraged (or compelled) to have both a civic and aesthetic output. There are expectations for artists to fulfill both an aesthetic and civic role, but not an increase in resources to support these responsibilities. As we look toward a shifting role of the arts and culture in Canada, we must be mindful not to laud artists as agents of social change without supporting their capacity to enact this change.

Q: In opera specifically, what changes have you noticed in relation to social issues?

Lindsay: That鈥檚 an interesting question. In the wake of the pandemic, opera is dealing with a loss of audience, an aging patron base, issues of burnout, and an interrogation of its role in society. For that reason, companies are balancing new works with revivals and stalwart productions.聽 is exploring digital works and partnerships with larger institutions in order to support an emerging generation of artists. And is doing some really cool things at the intersection of virtual reality and opera. Larger organizations are partnering with indie and grassroots companies to resource share. The , who’s co-founder of , on a solo show that explores how conventions of race and gender exist within the canon. There are tons of critical pieces and initiatives being put forward. Running parallel to this, we see that companies are accepting entertainment and spectacle as an equally important part of the landscape. Different productions inevitably have different aspirations.

Q: Overall, is there a role for the arts in addressing social change?

Lindsay: There isn鈥檛 one straight answer to that. I presume that the answer will also vary depending on who you ask. The instrumentalization of the arts 鈥� using the arts to address broader social or economic issues 鈥� has been embedded in our cultural policy and rationale (and public consciousness) for quite some time.

The arts are inherently social, but the 鈥渟ocialness鈥� of the arts can also be exploited. Scholar Adam Saifer looks at 鈥渁rt for social change philanthropy.鈥� He points to the fact that this 鈥榩rogressive turn鈥� in arts philanthropy often commodifies artists (particularly the racialized poor) without shifting their material or economic realities. This is important work.

The arts鈥� fluidity, immeasurability and subjectivity leaves it open to take on many forms and absorb many claims. This presents a host of challenges. It also makes for a beautiful, fertile ground for experimentation, world-building and hope. I love academia and research and am deeply grateful for the privilege to contribute here. I am an artist in my bones, though.

Meghan Lindsay is on . Banner photo is courtesy of Gabriel Varaljay. Photo of Artscape Theatre Centre is courtesy of Adamina and Wiki Commons.

Question: Did you start in the private sector? How did you end up at a nonprofit?

Watts: I’m the most unlikely nonprofit leader you may ever find. From my earliest days in high school, I always thought I’d work in the world of business, not nonprofits. I worked in a number of marketing roles in business, and afterwards, began a 14-year career as a management consultant, which exposed me to dozens of businesses and nonprofit organizations. When I walked into the Welcome Hall Mission as CEO, that was unusual — it was unusual that someone with very little experience in the sector could just walk in and become a leader of an iconic Montreal nonprofit organization. I’ve been here seven years, and we’ve roughly doubled the overall size of the Mission, and done some pretty creative things on top of what was already created.

Q: What shifts have taken place in your part of the sector?

Samuel Watts: Here’s the big shift that’s been happening in our sector: we moved away from the notion of a “patch” towards the notion of a “solution.” A patch, to me, is a bowl of soup, or a food bank, or a bed for the night, with few supports outside of emergency services. That was part of the ethos of a particular era in the past hundred years — the belief that someone had to “pull themselves up by their own bootstraps,” or figure things out on their own. Now, we’re solution providers, rather than patch appliers. We still do emergency help, which is the same principle as an emergency room in a hospital. We help now, and we help along the way, to guide people to the solutions they want.

For example, our emergency services to people experiencing homelessness are entirely geared around housing. So, when someone comes in for the first time, we asked them why they’re here and how we can help them, and what would they like to have in terms of permanent housing — and we work with them to get them to that point. A number of other providers across Canada are doing the same thing.

Q: I’ve heard about “free” grocery stores in Montreal. Can you explain?

Watts: We run a food-security program organized around two free, grocery stores that serve approximately 10,000 people each month. It’s a model of that we started, and it generated some interest across North America. People can choose what they want from the stores, and they don’t have to line up to get in. Their repeat shopping is limited by family size, income criteria and other criteria, but the grocery store isn’t the end point. The reason why they’re there is something we can capture, and there are social workers who can work with those individuals or families to help them get to a point where they won’t need us anymore.

We focus on helping people get to that next space. It’s founded on the principal of agency (so, people get choice) and dignity (people experience a positive thing when they come in). There are no bended knees here. Our volunteer workers thank people for shopping with us.

The solution to food insecurity isn’t more food-distribution points. It’s to reduce poverty. What I’d love to see is the number of users go down at our free grocery stores because poverty is being reduced. Hunger in Canada isn’t the problem. We have more than enough food to feed people. The problem is the inequality of food distribution, and the fact that we have a certain percentage of people who live below the poverty line — that they have to ask themselves if they can pay their rent at the end of the month, or buy boots for their kids, or have to go without a couple of meals.

Q: From your point of view, what shifts have you noticed among foundations?

Watts: The foundations having a significant impact are the ones moving away from a rigidly oriented grant-awarding process and moving towards establishing partnerships with carefully selected civil society organizations in key areas. These could be making progress in specific areas, like environmental stewardship, the arts or housing. Foundations are best advised to develop robust partnerships with key service organizations that have 鈥渋nstitutional capacity,” set goals and monitor milestones. Partnerships are required at a variety of levels, including with government. We’re not going to solve major, complex social challenges without partnerships.

Q: You mentioned government. What’s the situation in Quebec in terms of partnerships in your sector?

Watts: We’re not going to solve social challenges without partnerships with all three levels of government. Homelessness, which is one of our sectors at the Welcome Hall Mission, isn’t just a federal problem 鈥� and isn’t just a provincial problem, and it isn’t just a municipal problem. It’s all three.

In Quebec, many national policies that touch on areas of shared jurisdiction require the approval of the Quebec government in order for programs to take effect. This can produce funding delays. In our sector, in Quebec, most of the funding flows through the health care network, which is also a massive bureaucracy. At the Mission, we end up in an unusual spot in our sector, having to talk to both the federal and provincial governments, as well as having to sure the municipal governments aren’t excluded, unlike in Toronto, for example, where major social issues have been download to cities. That’s not the case here in Montreal; our city doesn’t have any leverage, funding-wise, with some of the issues.

Q: What critical shifts have to happen in government?

Watts: I’ve said to some of my friends in government, “We’re going to have to start looking at issues — like poverty, like the housing crisis, like violence against women, those sorts of things — we’re going to have to look at them through the same lens as we looked at the pandemic.”

The only way we’re going to solve these issues is if we act together. Currently, in Montreal there are at least four or five plans for how to deal with homelessness and housing, and none of them coordinate properly. The good news in Canada, excluding a few hotspots, is that the numbers aren’t at a level where I would say, “I don’t know where to start.”

Q: How do you remain positive in light of the crises in housing and other parts of our sector? How do you maintain a positive perspective?

Watts: Policy moves at the speed of public opinion. Advocates in our sector have primarily focused on representations to the different orders of government without a coherent strategy related to shaping public opinion. My positivity comes from the fact I’m beginning to see public opinion move in a direction that will convince politicians to move forward. A very good example is housing or poverty. Four or five elections ago, those issues weren’t popular. In recent elections, these issues were in the top four or five priorities.

There are around 12,000 people in Toronto currently experiencing homelessness who can be identified — and there are certainly many more who are hidden — but a challenge of this size can be resolved. In Montreal, it’s roughly half that number.

One of the challenges is that we don’t have good, real-time data across the country, but we do have good answers for about 80% of the population that finds itself experiencing homelessness. They can be re-housed with a little bit of effort and the support systems around them. There’s a 20% segment 鈥� that’s the segment that the media often focuses on 鈥� that are very complex cases, and we have to develop solutions for them. As a society, we’re wealthy, and we can resolve issues regarding homelessness.

Welcome Hall Mission (Mission Bon Accueil) is on and . They’re also on and in French and English. Photos are courtesy of the Mission.

Simon Brault, directeur et chef de la direction du Conseil des arts du Canada. Photo par Tony Fouhse.

[This article is also available in English.]

脌 la fin de 2022

Simon Brault, directeur et chef de la direction du , a rencontr茅 PANL Perspectives dans le cadre de la s茅rie The Arts and Social Issues afin de discuter des fa莽ons dont l鈥檕rganisme r茅pond aux enjeux sociaux. Le Conseil est l鈥檕rganisme public de soutien aux arts du Canada, et son mandat est de favoriser et de promouvoir l鈥櫭﹖ude et la diffusion des arts, ainsi que la production d鈥櫯搖vres d鈥檃rt. En 2021-2022, il a vers茅 approximativement 475聽millions de dollars en subventions 脿 des artistes, 脿 des organismes et 脿 des institutions. (Le compte rendu de cette entrevue a 茅t茅 r茅vis茅 par souci de clart茅.)

Q聽: Quelles nouvelles initiatives le Conseil des arts a-t-il mises en 艙uvre en mati猫re de justice sociale, de v茅rit茅 et de r茅conciliation, d鈥檃cc猫s et de diversit茅, et de solutions aux changements climatiques?

叠谤补耻濒迟听: Le Conseil des arts a lanc茅 son plan strat茅gique聽2021-2026, , afin de garantir que les arts sont consid茅r茅s et per莽us comme plus pertinents par l鈥檈nsemble de la population canadienne. Le secteur artistique et les artistes ne peuvent pas faire abstraction des enjeux qui comptent pour la population, notamment la justice sociale, les changements climatiques, la diversit茅, l鈥檌nclusion, la repr茅sentation et la question du Nord.

Les arts ne constituent pas uniquement un secteur d鈥檃ctivit茅. L鈥檃rt est 茅galement une dimension de notre d茅mocratie, de notre pays, de nos communaut茅s et de nos vies en tant qu鈥櫭猼res humains. Le Conseil des arts tient compte des enjeux sociaux lorsqu鈥檌l doit prendre des d茅cisions relatives 脿 ses investissements.

Le soutien que le Conseil des arts offre aux artistes du Nord en est un exemple. Il devient de plus en plus 茅vident que la majorit茅 de nos d茅fis pour l鈥檃venir sont repr茅sent茅s dans cette r茅gion du pays. Les changements climatiques, le manque d鈥檃ttaches, l鈥檌solement, la distance et les barri猫res physiques sont des exemples de ces probl猫mes 茅normes et urgents. Pendant des ann茅es, la vision du Conseil des arts consistait 脿 expliquer aux personnes vivant dans le Nord comment acc茅der aux programmes con莽us dans le sud. Nous comprenons maintenant que nous devons soutenir les artistes l脿-bas, selon leurs propres conditions. Ce virage a 茅t茅 transformateur.

Pendant 150聽ans, ce pays, avec son syst猫me de pensionnats et avec diverses politiques, a tent茅 d鈥檈ffacer l鈥檈xistence culturelle des peuples autochtones. Dans nos efforts pour soutenir les arts autochtones, nous tenons compte de ce fait ainsi que des barri猫res syst茅miques que ces peuples ont d没 surmonter, notamment la vision eurocentrique des arts. Il y a quelques ann茅es, nous avons cr茅茅 et qui est dirig茅 par du personnel autochtone. Les cat茅gories que nous utilisions par le pass茅 ont perdu de leur pertinence. Par exemple, si nous soutenions autrefois la litt茅rature en fran莽ais ou en anglais, nous appuyons aujourd鈥檋ui la litt茅rature et les livres jeunesse r茅dig茅s dans des langues autochtones, des langues qui doivent survivre et 锚tre florissantes.

Q聽: Avez-vous remarqu茅 si certains secteurs artistiques se sont positionn茅s comme chefs de file par rapport aux changements strat茅giques que vous avez mentionn茅s?

叠谤补耻濒迟听: Oui, notamment le th茅芒tre, surtout 脿 Toronto, o霉 des groupes comme et beaucoup d鈥檃utres compagnies, dramaturges et metteuses et metteurs en sc猫ne aux horizons vari茅s discutent et proposent des pi猫ces sur des questions li茅es 脿 la justice sociale et 脿 l鈥檌nclusion.

C鈥檈st aussi le cas de la litt茅rature. Il y a des livres, des romans, de la po茅sie et des essais o霉 ces enjeux sont en trame de fond ou m锚me au premier plan. Cela comprend des 艙uvres litt茅raires pour les enfants et les jeunes. De nombreux livres d鈥檈nfants publi茅s portent sur l鈥檃venir de la plan猫te et la justice climatique, posent la question du vivre-ensemble ou traitent de la pauvret茅 et d鈥檃utres questions s茅rieuses qui 茅taient autrefois vues comme 茅tant r茅serv茅es aux adultes.

Les arts visuels se sont eux aussi int茅ress茅s 脿 ces questions et 脿 ces points de vue.

Ce n鈥檈st pas au Conseil des arts d鈥檌nfluencer ou de prescrire ce que les artistes cr茅ent, mais il est important pour nous de soutenir les propositions de ces artistes et de braquer les projecteurs sur celles qui sont porteuses de sens pour une grande partie de la population.

Q聽: Quel est le r么le des prix artistiques dans ce contexte?

Le m茅moire d鈥橢li Baxter, Aki-wayn-zih, a remport茅 un Prix litt茅raire du Gouverneur g茅n茅ral en 2022 dans la cat茅gorie Essais en anglais. Cet ouvrage nous propose de plonger dans la culture, la langue et l鈥檋istoire anishinaabe.

叠谤补耻濒迟听: Le Conseil des arts a le mandat de g茅rer, de subventionner et d鈥檕rganiser le plus grand portefeuille de prix artistiques au pays, des prix en litt茅rature, en architecture, en arts visuels et en arts de la sc猫ne. Par exemple, cette ann茅e, 14聽ouvrages ont 茅t茅 s茅lectionn茅s par des comit茅s parmi 1鈥�200聽livres pour les Prix litt茅raires du Gouverneur g茅n茅ral.

En tant que directeur et chef de la direction du Conseil des arts, je m鈥檃ssure de lire chaque ann茅e les 14聽livres gagnants, car ils me donnent le pouls de ce dont d茅battent les po猫tes, les romanci猫res et romanciers, les traductrices et traducteurs ainsi que les essayistes. Je constate que ces artistes abordent toutes ces choses dont nous avons parl茅 avec beaucoup de puissance et d鈥櫭﹎otion. Ces questions ont de l鈥檌mportance pour les artistes, qui r茅fl茅chissent constamment et remettent en question les mentalit茅s soci茅tales.

Q聽: Quel est le plus grand d茅fi du Conseil des arts?

叠谤补耻濒迟听: La qualit茅 et la diversit茅 des productions artistiques dans ce pays augmentent, en grande partie parce que nous pouvons inclure, soutenir et reconna卯tre des voix qui ont 茅t茅 ignor茅es ou marginalis茅es pendant tr猫s longtemps.

Je suppose que notre combat r茅side dans la n茅cessit茅 de cr茅er un espace suffisant pour que les gens puissent interagir avec ce qui est cr茅茅, parce que nous finan莽ons beaucoup de cr茅ations artistiques, mais en m锚me temps nous savons que les grandes plateformes 鈥� Netflix et compagnie, la diffusion en continu et tout 莽a 鈥� occupent un espace encore plus vaste. Cela dit, comment nous assurer de consacrer autant d鈥檃ttention aux propositions artistiques et litt茅raires pertinentes et de qualit茅, et de favoriser l鈥檈ngagement authentique du public ou son exposition 脿 ces 艙uvres?

Je pense que c鈥檈st l脿 o霉 nous en sommes et, honn锚tement, d鈥檌ci les 10聽prochaines ann茅es, ce sera un test important. Nous devons nous assurer, encore une fois, de stimuler la cr茅ation, mais aussi l鈥檈ngagement du public 脿 l鈥櫭ゞard de ce que proposent les cr茅atrices et cr茅ateurs en arts visuels, en litt茅rature, en cin茅ma et en musique. Nous devons nous assurer que tout le monde peut voir et entendre ces offres et en profiter. Ce sera notre d茅fi au cours des prochaines ann茅es.

Le Conseil des arts du Canada est sur , , et .

Les photos sont publi茅es avec l鈥檃imable autorisation de Tony Fouhse et du Conseil des arts.

A聽board of directors should exercise a ‘challenge function.’ How does a board ask challenging or hard questions — and do this well?

Yves Savoie is an executive coach and strategy advisor to nonprofits and charities.

Savoie: The ‘challenge function’ is a type of inquiry and is about creating a culture that allows difficult questions, sometimes pointed questions, to be asked. So, when we talk about ‘challenge,’ we’re not talking about challenging an individual. Instead, we’re talking about challenging issues, approaches or frameworks — to hold people to account, to ensure there’s fiduciary, policy and other compliance or to address ethical or strategic issues. For instance, it’s important for board agendas and for information flows to maximize the time during board meetings for the board members, not just staff members, to be engaged and to ask challenging questions. This is central to a board’s role either in public or in camera.

Boards and staff have to work closely as partners, with trust, yet not so close, not so cozy, so as to prevent people from asking tough questions, and that requires a tough skin among CEOs and an awareness that boards have the responsibility to sometimes ask tough questions — and the acknowledgment that such questions aren’t an attack and are, in fact, an exercise of due diligence. I think of governance as an ecosystem, and the CEO and board members are part of the ecosystem, and both have the responsibility to create a culture where difficult questions, processes of inquiry, are invited and welcomed — and that’s what the challenge function is about.

Do you have any advice for nonprofits about their policy manuals and reserve funds, given what happened at Hockey Canada?

Justice Thomas Cromwell, a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, wrote a report identifying problems at Hockey Canada.

Savoie: Hockey Canada commissioned a that sheds light on the situation, in plain language, with lots of references 鈥� for people who want a primer on the governance of nonprofit organizations. Hockey Canada is registered as an amateur athletic association, which is akin to a charitable organization. There are two examples that I lift from my reading of the Justice Cromwell report.

First, Hockey Canada doesn’t make public its audited financial statements because they fear they’ll be seen as a ‘rich’ organization and that such perception will impact their attractiveness to sponsors. There’s nothing wrong with being transparent. The University of Toronto posts online . , the , the , the and other large organizations have opened their doors very wide to be transparent about financial statements, policies and procedures, public complaint systems, whistleblower systems, and a lot more. Hockey Canada made clear mistakes in presupposing that people would make judgements of information that should be available to the public.

But the other example is that Justice Cromwell cites intra-fund transfers and funds disbursements related to those who alleged sexual harassment violations and notes that Hockey Canada minutes don’t show any records for decision-making related to those. There’s a big, big mistake in Hockey Canada’s conception of an in-camera meeting. ‘In-camera meeting’ does not mean that there’s no requirement to keep records about decision-making — not what it means at all. It may require that those records be confidential, so that you have a separate part of the minutes that reflects the minutes of the in-camera portion. But the practice on that is very well known. That they should have chosen to make big decisions and not record them is a big failure. So, as you look at this, you kind of say, “Really? No transparency? No record of decisions that have great import?”

For me, those are just two lessons to learn from the Hockey Canada experience.

Under what conditions, and how, does a board fire a CEO? More generally, how does a board exercise effective oversight of the CEO?

Savoie: In the Hockey Canada situation, people weren’t looking for only the CEO to be ousted; they wanted more than that; the board’s integrity was called into question. There are two things. First, what we know is that harm was caused. This wasn’t proven in a court of law, but, in private settlements, it seems harm was caused. However, there’s a second problem: those who are responsible for the possible egregious acts are shielded from accountability (because the settlements are private). These problems of harm to persons and shielding those responsible point to the accountability of the organization, not only to that of the CEO.

But let’s go to a situation in which only a CEO’s performance is at issue, a situation where there seems to be a clear failure. Actually, a clear failure in the performance of a CEO is rarely the case (unless, for example, a CEO has committed fraud). Situations where problems in performance are observed by some and not by others and are a source of disagreement among the board — these are typically the way these problems arise. Firing a CEO is one of the most difficult decisions a board will ever make, and unlike most board decision-making, they’re fractious and may take time to progress from the hallway to the board table, and from a minority to a majority point of view, and from there, to a termination. And there’s the related question of who will fill the role of CEO later, both the interim CEO and the permanent CEO. These decisions are really difficult.

Boards need to do a number of things to make this easier. One is to make sure that the whole board has sight lines to issues that relate to performance of the CEO. While a CEO performance review may be carried out by a few officers of the board or by a committee, the board should be invited at the front end and be briefed at the back end, in an in-camera session, about what has transpired. For instance, are there areas of shortfall where the CEO has been asked to improve performance or deepen their capabilities? Was this a year in which there were no compensation adjustments because the performance was deemed to be average or unsatisfactory? Often, those kinds of questions only bubble up for the whole board when a real crisis has developed.

Also, I’m one who believes that, on an annual basis, the board should get a confidential briefing on the entire compensation package for the CEO, so that there’s transparency about compensation and performance expectations. And expectations have to cover both the ‘what’ (increase revenue, increase program impact, build another site, run a capital campaign, or whatever ‘what’ is) and cover the ‘how’ (build a culture free of conflict, or another kind of ‘how’). These sight lines give the board signals about a CEO’s performance.

Are there other lessons for nonprofit governance and guidance for boards, CEOs and members — things we can learn from the Hockey Canada case?

Savoie: Yes. Boards rely on management to curate information to them. Most of the information that’s in a board binder comes from the staff. It’s entirely appropriate for boards to consider, at regular intervals (at least once a year or every two years), whether or not the information they’re getting is relevant to their decision-making. Is the information at the right level? Is it timely? And is it framed in the right way?

Let me give you an example. Most CEO reports tend to celebrate success. As human beings, we like that, but the reports invite the possibility that they overlook a challenge, difficulty or failure. It’s important for boards to say, “Let’s ask the CEOs to complete a report about compliance, about certain questions. For example, “Has there been a lawsuit served? Was the whistleblower line triggered? Was there a complaint of violence or harassment that’s been formally made in your workplace?” And the CEO has no choice but to answer those kinds of things. This process augments the richness, the timeliness, of what I would describe as the ‘bad news digest’ for the board. Boards need to be proactive about these kinds of things, and see that failures and mishaps are an opportunity to learn, repair and to grow. And, in my reading of Justice Cromwell’s report, that wasn’t part of Hockey Canada’s culture.

Yves Savoie is on . Photos are courtesy of Yves Savoie and Logan Weaver.

Disruption. Transformation. Reinvention. These lie ahead for Canada鈥檚 charitable and nonprofit sector. This sector must drive change for those it serves. And, it must help governments find and implement solutions to a growing number of complex issues. It is not the time for the sector to be passive, reactive or uncoordinated (if it ever was the time). Driving change requires a more powerful, more inclusive, more effective policy presence as the 鈥榮ector鈥� that has a collective mission to enhance the well-being of all Canadians.

A strong has been made that a 鈥榟ome鈥� in government 鈥� a dedicated Minister, agency or unit 鈥� is the route to being taken more seriously in public policy. This is only a partial answer. First, the sector must grow its own infrastructure. It must coordinate and use its collective power: provide an efficient two-way conduit for engagement between governments and the sector鈥檚 diverse components; identify shared issues and policy solutions; and amplify, centre and enhance the voices of equity-seeking groups. Without sector-wide coordination, government officials tend to throw up their hands, and claim that there are too many representatives asking for different things, which is (and has been) a sure way for the sector to be ignored.

Stronger policy infrastructure in other countries

Charities in other countries have created stronger policy infrastructure for themselves in recent years. In Australia 19 large national organizations came together to form a Charities Crisis Cabinet in early 2020 to give a policy voice to the sector during the pandemic, and to help charities support their communities, 鈥渆specially those most vulnerable to increased harm.鈥� The Crisis Cabinet had considerable successes, including a JobKeeper program during COVID, supports for digital transformation, commitment to a national strategy on volunteering and, with a change in government, a federal minister for charities. With an end to the pandemic in sight and a much more positive relationship with government, the Crisis Cabinet disbanded in September 2022.

In the UK, 55 organizations formed the Civil Society Group in November 2021 to increase collaboration and communication among charities, improve relationships with government and ensure better outcomes for communities. The Civil Society Group itself as being 鈥渁n organization that isn’t an organization.鈥� Rather, it the 鈥渃ollectives strengths of diverse charities鈥� and makes 鈥�, not just something that happens in times of crisis.鈥� It does not aim to be the sole representative policy voice for the sector or supplant the work of other infrastructure organizations, but instead to amplify and accelerate influence on policy makers. Participation is open to any interested organization and is already quite diverse, which has nevertheless produced agreement on .

Why is there so little coordinated action in Canada?

How might Canada鈥檚 charitable sector strengthen its ability to collaborate and affect public policy? With the sense of urgency in this transformational period, the and the commissioned my research team to help start conversations about a new cross-sector leadership vehicle. We produced a background paper on cross-sector leadership models and conducted interviews (N= 41) with a wide range of sector leaders, summarized as a second report.

There was general consensus among interviewees that leadership across the sector could be strengthened, although there are differing assessments of how best to do this. There is no appetite for a new organization, as a formal incorporated entity, that would take the place of existing infrastructure organizations. Rather, three potential structures 鈥� all of which would provide meaningful engagement with justice and equity-seeking groups 鈥� were identified:

• A coalition/network that works as a 鈥榥etwork of networks鈥� to bring together existing organizations across subsectors, including equity-seeking groups, and that collectively advocates on cross-sector issues;
• A policy advocacy shop that is a small, purpose-built entity focused solely on advancing policy engagement for the sector, mainly at the federal level; and
• A participatory forum that first aims to deepen understanding of the issues within the sector through meaningful, inclusive dialogue, and then gets these perspectives reflected in advocacy work being done on behalf of the sector.

We heard that how a new mechanism is formed, and who leads the process, will affect its legitimacy and the willingness of others to come on board. There was a clear sense that the catalyst should not be a single organization, as this does not instill confidence that the new mechanism would not be controlled by it (whether by design or inadvertently).

Banner photo of Parliament is courtesy of Shubham Sharan.