Canada’s political parties are ignoring the recommendations of the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector
Why It Matters
Professionals, lawyers, and academics who spoke to the Committee believe Canada’s social impact sector is too cumbersome to adequately serve the needs of the country. Improving it will require tremendous government effort.
After years of consultations, the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector published a report in 2019 detailing all the ways Canada’s government could improve its regulations, practices, and procedures to strengthen non-profits and charities.
Very few party leaders running for office this fall seem to care.
A total of three of the report’s 42 recommendations were mentioned directly in any party’s platform. Three others were indirectly addressed, and a total of 36 recommendations were not addressed by any party.
The Liberals are promising to expand borrower eligibility for the Canada Small Business Financing Program to non-profit and charitable social enterprises, while the Conservatives are promising to reform the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)’s “direction and control” regulations”, bump the annual disbursement quota up to 7.5 percent, and give hundreds of millions in grants to non-profits and charities over at least two years.
Meanwhile, the NDP are promising to strengthen public pensions for all Canadians, the Bloc would do the same for Quebec pensions, and the Greens want a “guaranteed livable income”. And there is the promise of multi-year grant programs from the Liberals and Conservatives, although it isn’t clear whether they’ll be renewable or tailor reporting requirements for successful organizations to the level of funding they receive, as the report recommends.
Party platforms are supposed to be comprehensive, but there is every chance whichever party wins the election may put forward legislation that follows the Committee’s recommendations. Some parties, like the NDP, are also quite vague in their promises about working with the sector.
Here’s what we found:
Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error
