Catherine Bourgeois is Co-founder and Artistic and General Director of Joe Jack & John. Photo credit: Thibault Carron.

is Co-founder and Artistic and General Director of the MontrĂ©al-based theatre company . The company works at the intersection of theatre and life, creating theatrical productions with inclusive teams, including neurodivergent artists and artists with intellectual disabilities. Catherine has co-designed and directed most of the company’s productions, has received several accolades, and pursues more equitable professional recognition for women and artists living with disabilities. She spoke with PANL Perspectives as part of our “Making Canada Accessible” series.

Question: What have been your funding and production strategies in the face of barriers?

Neurodivergent artist Michael Nimbley directed and starred in “Les waitress sont tristes” (“The Waitresses Are Sad”). Photo credit: Joe Jack & John.

Catherine Bourgeois: Through two decades of work, one of the barriers has been recognition of our work, recognition of the fact that people with disabilities can be professional artists. Recognition from our peers has been more difficult to obtain than recognition from audiences and the general public. Recognition from funding bodies has been challenging as well, but not as much as from peers.

We came to life before EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) in the arts. For the first eight years, we rented bars, lofts or any place where we could produce our site-specific projects, because nobody wanted to program us. That was a real challenge. We’d design the locations and bring in audiences — and challenge the notion of audience, actor and the rapport between the two — but funding didn’t follow us, because we didn’t produce or present our work in professional theatres.

We got onto people’s radar when we were maybe 10 years old. The lack of recognition forced us to turn to philanthropic and private-foundation funding. We focused on the positive elements of what theatre means in the life of people living with a disability. Our strategy was to integrate people with a disability who were marginalized and outside of community, society and the arts. So, we emphasized the social and human impacts of our work.

It sometimes felt a bit stuck, because on one side, we were trying to be recognized for our work artistically, and on the other side, we looked like we were doing social work or community outreach, but our main strategy was to frame and create kick-ass work. We created the best work we could with the little means we had – and we wanted to people to see a show and say, “Oh, my God, that’s a great artistic production.”

Question: What productions stand out in terms of leadership and artistry?

“Violette” starred StĂ©phanie Colle. Photo credit: Michel St-Jean.

Catherine Bourgeois: We’re rather proud of everything we accomplished in the last few years. “” was a one-on-one spectator actor show involving Virtual Reality, pre-pandemic, and we went on tour with it later. It allowed the spectator to enter the privacy of the actor’s room — and then to enter her imagination. It was very intimate storytelling, with a lot of poetry around the way we were talking about a very harsh subject matter: the historical exploitation of women with an intellectual disability.

Edon Descollines starred in “Le magasin ferme” (“The Closed Store”). Photo credit: Marie SĂ©bire.

After that, “” (“The Closed Store”) was created and performed by the exceptional Edon Descollines, an artist with an intellectual disability who is proof that the work of a creator is enriched when supported by human and material resources. Le magasin ferme offered “relaxed performances,” which means it was open to all, specifically to people who have a sensory or intellectual disability, a neurological or learning disability, and to people with newborns or special needs.

That was followed by another show, “” (“The Waitresses Are Sad”), as part of our program of inclusive leadership, a show directed by neurodivergent artist Michael Nimbley, artist-in-residence since 2018 and a regular performer with the company. It was about a cowboy who seeks adventure, but who we discover is an alter ego for Michael dreaming about escaping his lonely life. The show offered Quebec Sign Language (LSQ) and a few relaxed performances as well.

Question: Do your shows they take on current events and issues head-on?

“Cispersonnages en quĂŞte d’auteurice” (“Cis-characters in Search of an Author”) opened two years ago and is still touring — and is a cheeky commentary on appropriation, privilege, cancel culture and the role of the artist in society. Photo credit: Thibault Carron.

Catherine Bourgeois: Our recent shows contained strong political stances, the kinds of shows we would not have pitched or produced five years before, because we were on project-based money back then, and every project had to have some kind of realistic or appealing aspect to it. Multi-year funding gave us more freedom to recruit people we identified as leaders in our community of intellectually disabled people.

Our most recent show, (“Cis-characters in Search of an Author”), opened two years ago, and is still touring. It’s a cheeky commentary on appropriation, privilege, cancel culture and the role of the artist in society. The show raises questions — and no answers – because, it’s like, “Oh, there’s actually grey zones and more complexities if we involve people with an intellectual disability to conversations about appropriation!” We asked non-disabled actor to act out a disability for example – and that created discomfort and many questions about who plays what, and why and why not.

Our main focus is the process, not the product. So, yes, there are productions, but our main focus has always been an inclusive process, such as collective writing, and not forcing words and ideas on actors. We work collectively, and that’s been part of the mandate since day one.

All our teams are inclusive in terms of non-disabled and disabled artists, and we’re always questioning the work. A new colleague just told me, “Everything here is getting questioned all the time,” and I said, “Oh, I didn’t even notice.”

Question: Over the years, have you noticed a change in who’s sitting in the audience?

Productions such as “Cispersonnages en quĂŞte d’auteurice” (“Cis-characters in Search of an Author”) have attracted diverse audiences across Canada. Photo credit: Thibault Carron.

Catherine Bourgeois: Yes. All our shows list Accessibility, with what’s available and not available, such as audio descriptions (for blind and low-vision patrons) or sign language interpretation (for the Deaf). On our , “Accessibility” is a tab, along with “Synopsis” and “Credits” tabs, for each show.

In the past seven years, we’ve been doing more “relaxed performance” – with sound, light, smell and other accessibility cues that create an environment for different kinds of abilities and a wider range of people, whether it’s a mom breastfeeding or someone with Tourette Syndrome being shushed during a show. Overall, there’s more work with accessibility initiatives, Quebec sign language interpretation, and audio description. So, we see real change in terms of accessibility for audiences across Canada.

For us, it’s important to develop other audiences, for people who can recognize themselves on stage. We noticed that relaxed performances became more formalized in Montreal and in Canada – and we’ve shared knowledge, and supported that.

Joe Jack & John is on , and . Catherine Bourgeois is on .

Kristen Pue

Kristen Pue is a Policy Analyst in the department of Employment and Social Development Canada. She spoke to PANL Perspectives about her research when she was a post-doctoral fellow at ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University (after a PhD in Political Science in 2021). Her comments and findings here don’t reflect the views of the ESDC. Her post-doc paper with Anna Kopec, titled “Do Service-Providing Nonprofits Contribute to Democratic Inclusion? Analyzing Democracy Promotion by Canadian Homeless Shelters,” was published in 2023 in the .

Question: How did you come to research democracy-promoting activities in our sector?

Kristen Pue: The paper came out of research in ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´’s School of Public Policy and Administration (SPPA) and was an extension of my PhD dissertation, which had looked at how governments acquire nonprofit organizations’ public services. The literature tends to divide nonprofits into two categories: (1) nonprofits that deliver social services and services that alleviate the symptoms of poverty; and (2) nonprofits that campaign, or promote democracy, or fulfill associational functions. But it struck me that, for organizations that are frontline service providers that serve some of our most vulnerable populations, like the unhoused, the potential to do both could be a powerful force for egalitarian democracy — and it didn’t seem like there was much research that put those two together.

Anna Kopec, Assistant Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration

My co-author, Anna Kopec, has a robust depth of knowledge about homelessness, and she and I wanted to understand to what extent service providers are providing democracy-promoting functions that we think are important about civil society and to what extent are they just focused on being homeless shelters that provide services and nothing beyond that. That was the idea behind the paper.

Q: What were the findings of the paper?

Pue: We found is that a lot of homeless shelters are involved in democracy-promoting functions in three areas. The first area promotes political participation — activities like acting as a polling station during an election or providing information about when an election occurs. The second category is what we call internal, democratic governance, such as having procedures within the nonprofit itself that incorporate participatory democracy — things like having meetings that involve clients, so that they can provide feedback. The third category is representative voice, which is about advocacy. So, for example, to what extent are homeless shelters acting as their clients’ representatives to governments and advocating for their clients’ needs? Also, to what extent are they including people with lived experiences directly in that advocacy?

With all three of those buckets, we found that homeless shelters in Canada are undertaking those roles. We also identified, in the paper, that there’s room for further action, but I was surprised, in a positive way, by the extent to which these organizations are advocating to address the root causes of homelessness — to prevent homelessness, to support inclusion, and to do other activities that would lead to the organization becoming obsolete. To me, this is great, because if you have a justice-promoting organization, it should be okay with solving the bigger problems and becoming obsolete.

Q: Globally, how does Canada compare in terms of housing and homelessness?

Pue: As a supplier of affordable housing, Canada lags behind other countries. We’re an outlier not only in terms of the typical comparators, like Sweden and Norway, but also compared to the UK and US, both of whom have more social housing, per capita, than Canada has. If you’re relying only on market housing, you’re never going to provide enough affordable housing for low-income people. If I were to put priority anywhere, it would be in social housing, as well as providing supportive housing for people who might need a hand because they aren’t able to pay over the short term.

A cascading series of problems, like climate change, the housing crisis and inflation, is resulting in more people who have full-time jobs still not being able to sustain the means of life. That makes the pathways out of homelessness a lot more challenging — and we may see things get worse if effort isn’t put into addressing underlying problems. Really, the solution isn’t complicated: you house people in affordable housing.

Q: During the research related to housing and homelessness, were there any democracy-promoting activities that stood out?

Pue: The work of , got me excited. The way they frame the role of the people they serve — referring to them as “members” rather than “service users” and “clients” for instance — is inclusive and highlights what we want, ideally, in terms of the relationship between members and shelters. They’re members who have rights and agency.

Medicine Hat, AB

Also, Medicine Hat, in Alberta, successfully ended homelessness, although I’m not sure if they’ve been able to sustain that. They took a housing-first approach because there was adequate political will. A housing-first approach seems to be the most effective approach in that you house somebody first and you don’t worry about the underlying causes of their homelessness, because meeting that basic need gives them a lot more space to be able to deal with whatever other problems that are in their life.

Camp Pekiwewin

And there have been a couple of social movements that have popped up in Canada that have been helpful in promoting democracy and participation among the unhoused.

An example was , a tent city in Edmonton. , but for a considerable time (three months), they were a promising space for cross-class, political engagement in which you had social-justice organizers and unhoused populations in an environment where needs were being met.

Tent cities are a sign of a problem, but in an absence of affordable housing, that was a space where people were able to show their cross-class solidarity — and people were able to interact with one another in a way that promoted class consciousness and promoted a sense of agency that’s often lacking when you’re talking about marginalized populations.

I do think that democracy-promoting initiatives like that are helpful, and nonprofits can play a role in supporting them, because the volunteers and staff of those organizations are oftentimes the people who go to those initiatives — and the nonprofits themselves could have a more formal role.

Kristen Pue is on . Anna Kopec is on as well.

July 15, 2021, update: Seven months ago, since the publication of “Unfunded,”ĚýłŮłó±đĚý (FFBC) put out a call to action to raise $300 million to capitalize its endowment. Specifically, FFBC called for $100 million from the Canadian philanthropic sector and $200 million from the Canadian government to invest directly into Black-led, Black-serving organizations. The government pledged $200 million dollars towards the creation of a Black-led philanthropic fund as part of its 2021 Budget, in direct response to FFBC’s lobbying, and is now setting up “On the other hand, the philanthropic sector’s response, thus far, has been acutely underwhelming,” says Liban Abokor, one of four FFBC working group members. Two foundations, Inspirit Foundation ˛ą˛Ô»ĺĚýLaidlaw Foundation, did respond, with $3.85 million, while the rest of the sector has been slow in response to the call for support. Meanwhile, the FFBC is doing three things: (1) distributing $225,000 to more than 20 organizations that are increasing COVID–vaccine literacy in BC and Alberta; (2) releasing a research study this summer about participatory, grant-making models in Canada; and (3) establishing an inaugural board of directors by the end of the summer.

Feb. 3, 2021: Contending with the twin crises of the COVID-19 pandemic and the resulting recession, many people in Canada still imagine not only a full recovery, but a future where we “.” Unfortunately, there are many communities in Canada that don’t share this optimism. For them, building back better is little more than a slogan; they focus on not being dug down deeper. Black people in Canada fall into that group.

The pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on two communities: those with pre-existing health conditions and those facing pre-existing inequities. Among the deep but often overlooked inequities are those stemming from systemic anti-Black racism and the gaps in opportunity it creates.

Fortunately, we’ve seen some promising signals. In the most recent throne speech, the federal government included a commitment to as a critical part of its inclusive recovery plan. Similarly, corporate Canada has stepped up and . These initial steps are encouraging, but there’s another equally important sector, Canadian philanthropy, that also needs to make a clear commitment to Black communities if we’re to achieve an equitable, post-pandemic recovery.

The report “UNFUNDED”

Prepared by the Network for the Advancement of Black Communities and ĐÓ°ÉÔ­´´ University’s Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership program, the report is the first to examine systematically the sector’s response to the challenges facing Black communities. What it discovers is shocking neglect. For example, for every $100 granted by the top 10 private and public foundations, only three cents go to Black-led organizations and 15 cents to Black-serving organizations.

A corresponding, national needs assessment by the Foundation for Black Communities offers corroboratory evidence, finding that nearly 65% of the Black-led or Black-serving organizations surveyed reported having less than six months’ worth of funding to sustain themselves.

So, at a time when Black communities in Canada face extraordinary difficulties stemming from the pandemic and recession, the organizations best placed to provide support are themselves struggling to survive. This is a recipe for disaster.

The good news

This is one disaster we can avoid if Canadian philanthropy commits to implementing the recommendations of the experts and leaders consulted in UNFUNDED.

Joseph J. Smith and Rebecca Darwent are two members of the Working Group that’s establishing the Foundation for Black Communities. Photo by RenĂ© Johnston.

First, Canadian philanthropy is predominantly white, from staff to board members. As noted in the report, this contributes to the woeful underfunding of Black communities. The philanthropic sector must address this lack of diversity, and address it intentionally. Otherwise, Black communities will remain within the philanthropic sector’s blind spots, and its gross neglect of those communities will continue.

Second, there are 1.2 million Black people in Canada. This community deserves a philanthropic home. That’s why the leaders and experts called for the establishment of the Foundation for Black Communities.

The Foundation for Black Communities aims to be a first-of-its-kind philanthropic organization dedicated to Black people in Canada. Its mission: to ensure Black communities have the resources they need to thrive and define their own futures. To realize that mission and reverse the pattern of philanthropic underfunding, the Foundation for Black Communities looks to raise an endowment of $300 million dollars. It will invest its resources directly into Black-led, Black-serving organizations that support and sustain the recovery of Black communities.

We call on the Canadian philanthropic sector to join in this effort and ensure that the Foundation for Black Communities will receive those resources – so that, collectively, we can all build back better.

is the Executive Director of Youth LEAPS, a nonprofit organization in Toronto that aims to improve educational and employment outcomes for Black youth. Abokor is also a member of the Working Group that’s establishing the . He’s on , and the . Top banner photo by RenĂ© Johnston (from left to right): Liban Abokor, Joseph J. Smith and Rebecca Darwent. Byline photo of Abokor is by Shawn McPherson.

Click for the Next Story in the Power Series: Introduction to Shifting Power

France enjoys one of the most enabling environments in the world for charitable activities and now counts 1.3 million associations. It’s relatively easy to create nonprofits, there are tax incentives for donations, and philanthropy has flourished since the 2003 Patronage Act.

However, restrictions are in the offing. As of February 2021, Parliament has discussed a new Act “consolidating the respect of republican principles” (inaccurately referred to as the “law against Islamic separatism”), which has sparked heated public debate. Beyond the asserted objectives targeting radical religious groups, observers fear ripple effects.

The law would broaden the justification for dissolving associations by government decree. Nonprofits seeking public grants would be required to sign a “pledge of republican adherence” (“contrat d’engagement républicain”), binding themselves without reciprocity. This is a pledge that nonprofit leaders from the and the deem unnecessary, both because existing laws and protocols already require the foreswearing of anti-republican behaviour, and because “separatists” are unlikely to apply for grants. The law could discourage whistleblowing, critical voices, and peaceful civic disobedience. The Défenseur des Droits (ombuds) and the have both expressed concerns over the risks of arbitrary decisions and ambiguous interpretations. Public funding could be abruptly suspended, reimbursements demanded, and access to public services barred, thereby threatening nonprofits’ already fragile resources. the umbrella organization for fundraising associations and foundations, has called for greater transparency in the planned administrative and fiscal control procedures, including the annual publication of anonymized decisions.

What should be done, and by whom?

Public authorities and decision-makers from across the political spectrum regularly and unanimously praise associations and foundations for their contribution to the public good, whether as public-service providers or as subcontractors of government services. In addition to heeding the recommendations listed above to improve the Act, they need to reiterate and act on their trust in nonprofits that leverage civic engagement, and to reaffirm the stability of the overarching legal framework – thereby quelling public apprehension and calming inflammatory discourse.

Local elected officials would benefit from specific training about the nonprofit sector to better understand its impact on civic life and social cohesion. Politicians must also accept that grassroots entities can be counterweights to centralized decision-making – thus contributing a healthy component of democracy. There have also been calls to end political cronyism towards associations.

Scholars have a role to play – taking their lead from the team of social scientists who in 2020 released a report documenting 100 infractions of nonprofit freedoms and offering to better protect them.

Nonprofit leaders also need to act. Attempts to introduce additional regulations in the recent past have inspired sector-wide coalitions of those leaders (see examples here and here), enabling organizations to find unity despite their great diversity, and collectively helping to reinforce the value perception of a sector that employs over 10% of the country’s workforce.

is a Fulbright Laureate in the NGO Leaders program and the inaugural “Global Philanthropy Fellow” at the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, Indiana University, USA. Sellen is on . Photo from France is courtesy Reuben Mcfeeters & Unsplash.

Next story in the Policy in Europe series

Recently, conversations have arisen in the philanthropic sector about rethinking the funder-grantee relationship to refocus power and influence. Behind these conversations is an increasing sense that a new kind of relationship could lead to more impact. And in the end, impact is what everyone is working towards.

Let me offer two examples to illustrate how our work at the Lawson Foundation is changing to give more power and influence to those we’re funding. Both involve relationships with Indigenous partners.

The partnership with Raven

The first one relates to the initiative. For more than three decades, the Foundation has worked on diabetes prevention and built up a strong expertise in the area. But we now know that if anything is going to change, things need to be done differently. Our work must increasingly be community driven, and that entails taking a back seat and playing much more of a supporting role. Although we’re at the table, leadership is in the hands of our Indigenous colleagues, such as those working with our partner, Raven Indigenous Capital Partners.

The partnership with the Indigenous Advisory Council

The second example relates to the recently created in which the Lawson Foundation was an early contributor along with the Laidlaw Foundation, McConnell Foundation and the Counselling Foundation of Canada. This is an Indigenous-led initiative to respond to urgent community needs with a view to strengthen resilience. All granting decisions are made by the Indigenous Advisory Council. The contributing funders have no say in the governance of the fund, its priorities or the granting making. That power has been left to the Council.

How to shift power in relationships

These two examples depart from the ways that we and other funders usually work, but they illustrate how by doing things differently, by sharing power and influence, all of us can benefit

Meechim Farm, in Garden Hill First Nation, in Manitoba, is a social enterprise — a farm, a food market, an agricultural training initiative and an educational program to teach children about food growth and healthy eating. It’s one of four Island Lake Indigenous communities participating in the Indigenous Diabetes Reduction initiative.

At the Lawson Foundation, we’re in a learning mode. Increasingly, we’ve been working with cohorts of grantees in our various impact areas, seeking their advice on our directions and priorities. A few years ago, along with our partners at the Laidlaw and Counselling foundations, we undertook our first , conducted by a third party, to hear from our grantees about what they like and don’t like about our way of engaging with them. It provided an important opportunity for them to be candid and for us to hear their voices.

Coming out of this are steps we’re now taking at the Lawson Foundation to make our relationships with grantees into ones of dual accountability. Our letters of agreement will increasingly recognize that duality. Grantees would continue to be accountable and to demonstrate the progress in the areas being funded. But we as a funder would also be accountable to our grantees by a commitment to provide the right support, engage in a more meaningful way and learn from them. These are small steps, but through them, we hope to begin to shift our relationships to build on our respective strengths.

Funders and grantees have very different assets to contribute to the challenges that we face. More impact could come from making better use of these. For funders, our assets stem primarily from our financial resources, but in many cases also from our ability to make connections, to open doors, and to convene unusual suspects. Grantees have strong relationships with the communities they serve. As a consequence, they bring a much deeper knowledge and experience of the realities on the ground and the issues that confront us as a society.

Indeed, grantees have been saying this for a very long time. But now funders are listening and acknowledging this in new, practical ways.

is President & CEO of the Lawson Foundation, a national family foundation that focuses on the healthy development of children and youth. He’s on and .

Click for the Next Story in the Power Series: The Foundation for Black Communities