It’s no secret that many in Canada’s non-profit and charitable sector feel left behind by the federal government’s pandemic response — from rules that make emergency funds inaccessible to some organizations to others who say there’s just flat-out not enough of it in the first place. And the struggles the sector has faced have been jarring: layoffs and closures have been widespread. 

Things might have gone differently, says Senator Ratna Omidvar, if the federal government had heeded recommendation 14 in a 2019 report from the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector, of which Sen. Omidvar is the deputy chair: “That the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, create a secretariat on the charitable and non-profit sector.”

Meanwhile, a cabinet shuffle early last week saw Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry Navdeep Bains step down, and François-Phillippe Champagne move from Foreign Affairs to take his place. And last Friday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau released supplementary mandate letters for all ministers in his cabinet. Trudeau’s letter to incoming Minister Champagne made little mention of the charitable sector, except to say: “You will continue to rely on and develop meaningful relationships with civil society and stakeholders, including businesses of all sizes, organized labour, the broader public sector and the not-for-profit and charitable sectors across Canada.”

But could a new minister be a fresh start for the movement for a non-profit and charitable sector home in government? We sat down with Sen. Omidvar for her thoughts on this and more.

The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

You’ve been vocal about the need for a home for the non-profit and charitable sector in the federal government for a long time. Has the pandemic changed your perspective on this at all?

During the pandemic, I did see what I’d call a makeshift home in government for charities at the federal level. That was an informal mix of ministers and departments putting together the emergency responses for the sector during the crisis — so there was an ad-hoc home in government that was organic and crisis driven, but I said to myself, this is interesting. It is a shift in the understanding at the federal level of how important the sector really is for the delivery of essential services. How do we take that shift and institutionalize it? 

Do you think the makeshift home spread across departments was effective, or do you still believe the Ministry of Innovation, Science and Industry is the right place for such a secretariat?

There were lots of calls like, why not Privy Council? Why not Canadian Heritage? Why not Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC)? We chose the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Economic Development [the name at that time] because it is important to ally the interests of the government with the sector through a business lens. This sector is incredibly resilient and innovative. It innovates all the time — it has to to survive. It does use science and evidence. If we can position it in a ministry that is somewhat neutral in terms of demographics, but has broad breadth and reach across other departments, we thought that would be a good idea. Now, the government can choose where it thinks it’s useful, and that could well be the outcome. During the crisis, it was, somewhat informally, ESDC that was taking the lead. But the notion that a home in government would strengthen the sector, that’s the one that we need to push, beyond the particularities of where it should be. But we need to do a lot more education to the government that the sector is not just a driver of services and public good — it is an economic driver: 8 percent of our gross domestic product, 2 million Canadians employed. Those are the messages we have to move. 

How might have the non-profit and charitable sector fared differently through the pandemic had it had this kind of home in government?

If there had been a home in government, we possibly would not have had the distraction of the WE Charity controversy, with its knock-on effects on the charitable sector. If there had been a home in government, which could have very quickly provided advice to the government on how best to get students involved in volunteering during the crisis, it would have been a quick way to get advice, perspective, and possibly some recommendations — and they could have included the kinds of recommendations we heard in newspapers after the controversy. How much were we distracted by the controversy, instead of paying attention to the needs of Canadians? I regret that. I regret enormously that the sector has somewhat also been tarnished by perception and association, as opposed to by substance, by the scandal. I think that is an important lesson for us to consider as we move forward. 

If there had been a home in government, we possibly would not have had the distraction of the WE Charity controversy, with its knock-on effects on the charitable sector.

What progress did this movement toward establishing a secretariat make in 2020? What was outgoing Minister Bains’s stance?

The progress was slow, partly because of the COVID crisis. I respect the fact that ministers have to pay attention to the most important needs of Canadians. I also think the governing party itself was a little traumatized by the WE Charity scandal, so there was some pulling back from all of these proposals, or just the word ‘charity’ for some time — there was a bit of a chill — but now we’re feeling more comfortable putting forward proposals again. I’ve had conversations with outgoing Minister Bains’s team — it was a conversation of clarification. I do have meetings lined up with Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and I just spoke to Families, Children and Social Development Ahmed Hussen about this as well, so I am pushing forward, regardless. 

Following last week’s cabinet shuffle, is there an opportunity for renewed momentum on this? How might incoming Minister Champagne respond?

You can see cabinet shuffles as a challenge, but I also see them as an opportunity. Minister Champagne, who I will seek to meet with very soon, comes to the portfolio very well qualified, with a lot of corporate experience — and a lot of corporate board experience. I don’t know whether he has any experience with not-for-profit organizations, but let me make an assumption that corporate leaders also become philanthropic and civil society leaders at the same time. So, I’m sure there is something there, and there will be a touchpoint. I’m looking forward to working with incoming Minister Champagne, but I am clear-eyed and realistic that I’m not going to get a meeting immediately. 

As we move into a recovery phase of the pandemic, what support are you hearing the non-profit and charitable sector needs from the federal government and how might a home in government be a pathway to that support?

First of all, the sector desperately needs a stabilization fund or a relief fund. The sector desperately needs particular financing to keep its doors open in a digital sense. Just as the government is sitting down with airlines now, and with the hospitality industry, it needs to sit down with the charitable sector. A home in government would make that so much easier, because you would have a convening mechanism already. Absent that, I think we have to take to the airwaves in a different way, like through the Anti-Poverty Caucus I’m a part of. 

Can you tell us a bit more about your work with the Anti-Poverty Caucus and how it might be another way to advocate for the sector’s needs? 

The Anti-Poverty Caucus is made up of MPs and senators from around all groups and parties in the chamber, so it’s a very good mechanism for us to insert notions of interventions to stabilize the lives of poor people. We’re focused on a guaranteed, liveable basic income, but we also realize that it is the charitable sector and its stability or lack of stability that will stabilize or destabilize the lives of Canadians. So, we are going to take this on in a small way. These are all pre-budget strategies that are happening. 

How can leaders and professionals in the non-profit sector join you in this call?

I understand what the sector is going through, so it’s hard to put a call on them, but I will: If 2021 is to be the year to establish a home in government, then the sector must take the charge, take the lead. I think the sector needs to launch a campaign on this. They could ramp up their advocacy to ministers, to individual MPs. Let’s remember that we may well go into an election, and then it’s not just about the governing party — then it’s about all the parties. It has to get into the policy platform of all the parties, so that ups what the sector is required to do. The sector is brilliant at getting on social media, and it’s being heard more on the mainstream media, maybe because of its struggles last year. I, on my side, hopefully will develop a coalition of senators who will do the same, but elected officials listen far more to communities than to an unelected senator, so it is really important to have the sector be the loudest voice in the room on this issue.

Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error