Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
www.elsevier.com/locate/polsoc
Nonprofit engagement with provincial policy officials:
The case of NGO policy voice in Canadian immigrant
settlement services
Bryan Evans *, John Shields 1
Department of Politics and Public Administration, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5B 2K3
Abstract
This paper explores the role of nonprofit organizations in the immigrant settlement and integration sector in the public policy
process in three Canadian provinces. Drawing on thirty one (31) semi-structured interviews with nonprofit and mid-level policy
officials (working for a provincial government) in three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan), the place of
nonprofit agencies in providing input and voice to policy issues in the area of settlement and integration services is presented. Issues
regarding the willingness to use advocacy/voice with government funders, the usefulness of government consultations, strategies
used in approaching government, the role of research in making evidence-based cases regarding policy and program change, among
other considerations are examined. The assessments provided by key nonprofit actors and government policy officials are used to
bring better understanding of the perceived roles of nonprofit organizations in the daily work of policy.
# 2014 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction: research context
This article explores the role of nonprofit organizations in the immigrant settlement and integration sector in the
public policy process in three of Canada’s provinces.
Using semi-structured interviews with non-government and mid-level provincial government policy workers in
three provinces (Ontario, British Columbia and Saskatchewan) the real influence of non-governmental agencies in
providing input and voice to policy issues in this policy field at the sub-national level is presented. This study seeks to
critically examine the assumption of New Public Governance (NPG) theory that frames policy work as a multi-actor
exercise through an exploration of advocacy/voice by nonprofit agencies, the effectiveness of government policy
consultations, strategies used by nonprofit agencies in opening policy dialogue with government, and the role of
evidence-based research in policy and program change. The assessments of key non-governmental actors and
government policy officials of these policy advocacy activities are used to bring better understanding of the role of
NGOs in the daily work of policy engagement with provincial governments.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 416 979 5000x4199.
E-mail addresses: b1evans@politics.ryerson.ca (B. Evans), jshields@politics.ryerson.ca (J. Shields).
1
Tel.: +1 416 979 5000x6167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.05.002
1449-4035/# 2014 Policy and Society Associates (APSS). Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
118
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
2. Immigrant settlement and integration services
The focus of this case study is immigrant settlement and integration services provided by the province but delivered
by nonprofit service providers. This makes a particularly compelling case study because there has been a long
relationship between government in Canada and nonprofit organizations in the provision of supports for newcomers to
this country. This Canadian model of settlement services has generated considerable interest internationally, and has
often been seen as a case of best practice. The reshaping of this NGO-government relationship, within the context of
New Public Management (NPM) reforms, has in more recent years placed more strain on this form of NGOgovernment ‘partnership’ (Halligan, 2011; Richmond & Shields, 2005). Historically this policy area (settlement
services) has been the primary domain of the Federal Government. Even though immigration is one of those
constitutionally shared areas of jurisdiction the federal government has led the development of settlement services. A
more substantive provincial role, beyond the special role the Province of Quebec has assumed beginning in the late
1960s, in direct support for immigrant settlement within their territory is of more recent origin (Atkinson et al., 2013,
14–15). The greater provincial presence in this policy area has emerged for a variety of reasons. Primary among these
have been the impact of neoliberal governance models which have centered on devolving responsibilities. The
provincial involvement in these services has however developed unevenly and the place and impact of immigration
varies considerably across provinces. Both Ontario and British Columbia have been long standing traditional locations
of newcomer settlement, particularly the metropolitan areas of Toronto and Vancouver which continue to receive the
largest share of incoming immigrants. In fact, more than 70% of the foreign born population in Canada is found in
these two provinces (Statistics Canada, 2013, 9). By contrast, Saskatchewan, until recently, struggled to maintain even
its domestically born population base, has begun to attract a newcomer population and has undertaken more aggressive
recruiting to feed the province’s rapidly expanding labor market. Its share of the annual landings of newcomers, while
still very modest, increased from 1.5% (4835) to 2.7% (6890) of Canada’s total between 2007 and 2009 (Saskatchewan
Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Immigration, 2009, 4). Overall, Canada according to our latest
2011 Census enjoys the highest proportion of foreign born population among the G8 rich nations at 20.8% (CBC,
2013).
While historically immigration and settlement policy in Canada has been largely set nationally, settlement and
integration remains inherently a process that takes place at the sub-national level (Vengroff, 2013) this helps to explain
why locally-based NGOs have taken the lead in settlement provision. The density and range of NGO settlement
service providers in BC and Ontario, particularly in the larger urban areas, have been considerable and the
development of settlement infrastructure took strong roots in these provinces by the 1970s (Biles, Tolley, Andrew,
Esses, & Burstein, 2011; Hiebert & Sherrell, 2011). Saskatchewan developed much later in this regard and are only
now building capacity (Garcea, 2011). Sector wide umbrella organizations in settlement formed at the provincial level
in BC (Affiliation of Multicultural Societies and Service Agencies of BC (AMSSA)) and Ontario (Ontario Council of
Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI)) in the late 1970s and took a decade longer to emerge in Saskatchewan
(Saskatchewan Association of Immigrant and Settlement Integration Agencies (SAISIA)). Their role in research,
policy development and direct mandates for political advocacy varies as well. OCASI embraces all three roles,
AMSAA does not do political advocacy, and SAISIA does not have a mandate for either research or political advocacy,
although they all do engage in other collective voice and government engagement functions (OCASI & CISSA, 2014:
32, 2–6).
The Province of BC was one of the earlier sub-national governments to take on a greater role in settlement and
immigration. This was greatly facilitated by an agreement between BC and the Federal Government which started in
1998 to devolve with funding settlement services to the province (Hiebert & Sherrell, 2011, 82–83). Currently however,
as part of wide ranging set of Federal reforms to immigration policy this agreement has been canceled and settlement is
being ‘repatriated’ back to the national government. This has caused considerable anxiety and confusion among
settlement organizations in the province. The Province of Ontario also got a settlement devolution agreement with the
Federal Government but the national government has refused to renew this 5 year arrangement. Ontario has had for a
considerable period of time a separate department, Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (MCI), which handles
immigration issues (Biles et al., 2011). Saskatchewan by contrast has never had a settlement agreement with the Federal
Government and the immigration portfolio has regularly shifted between different ministries (Garcea, 2011).
Settlement services are about providing various forms of support and assistance to immigrant populations which
help newcomers get established in, and meet their core needs/requirements, for their integration into their new
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
119
homeland. The goal of settlement services is to support immigrants’ short and longer-term needs to make the
transitions toward being able to fully participate in the economy and society. Immigrant settlement and integration,
and the services associated with these goals are characterized by the following:
- Adjustment: acclimatization and getting use to the new culture, language, people and environment or coping with the
situation.
- Adaptation: learning and managing the situation without a great deal of help.
- Integration: actively participating, getting involved and contributing as citizen of a new country (OCASI & COSTI,
1999: Chapter 2, 1).
Settlement services tend to be focused in the areas of: (1) language acquisition and proficiency; (2) employmentrelated services; (3) housing; and (4) information workshops and settlement counseling services. Settlement and
integration policies are more than just administrative decisions, they are also established programs and practices that
provide a general reflection of what the society believes should be the place of immigrants in their communities
(Siemiatycki & Triadafilopoulos, 2010). Moreover, these policies point to the warmth of the newcomers welcome
(Reitz, 1998) to their new society, and the policies provide something of a blueprint regarding how and by what paths
immigrants will be supported in their journey toward accommodation, acceptance and integration. Given that
newcomers constitute a vulnerable population, especially since some 70% of them are identifiable minorities,
nonprofit organizations and frontline agencies that service this population have a special role to play in giving voice to
newcomer concerns and interests to government policymakers.
3. Context setting: NGO advocacy and developments in governance and public administration – a brief
overview
Advocacy is one of the key roles that nonprofit NGOs play within modern society. Providing a voice to the
communities they serve, especially vulnerable ones, is important for democracy and, in the case of immigrants, for
their effective integration into society (Evans & Shields, 2010; Richmond & Shields, 2005; Shragge, 2013, 47).
Laforest (2001, 8) has defined advocacy broadly as ‘‘the act of voicing the concerns and needs of the constituency,
conveying their opinion and representing their interest to the state’’. Carter, Plewes, and Echenberg (2005, 6) have
categorized the policy voice role of nonprofit organizations as involving the following categories: ‘‘(1) identifying
issues on the policy agenda; (2) developing policy solutions through research and analysis, i.e. policy-ready research;
and (3) promoting particular policy solutions’’ which includes mobilizing, protesting and demonstrating, lobbying
government and other forms of advocacy including dialoguing with government.
One useful way of thinking about nonprofit advocacy is what Creese has called ‘big advocacy’ versus ‘small
advocacy’. Big advocacy involves employing a more public form to addressing policy change which includes
‘‘challenging government programs and policies that affect immigrants, refugees and settlement workers’’ (1998, 28).
‘Small advocacy’ concerns activities that involve more ‘behind the scenes’, day to day interface and ‘consultation’ that
occurs between state officials and NGO personnel (Creese, 1998, 27). The advocacy on the part of nonprofits that takes
place here means taking on something of an insider role where educating officials rather than confronting the state
becomes the focus. Of course, as Gormley and Cymrot note, the effectiveness of insider strategies rests on the
presumption that meaningful access to government exists and that the NGOs are listened to and have a reasonable
ability to actually influence the policy and programming (2006, 104). This study is particularly centered around
examining the ‘small advocacy’ role of nonprofits in settlement and integration policy.
Wayland reminds us that nonprofit advocacy is about relationships that involve engagement with the state resulting
in ‘‘both collaboration and conflict’’ (Wayland, 2006: 1). Insider strategies rest upon a collaboration focus. Jedwab, for
one, maintains that in the immigration field that the best and most successful relationships between nonprofits and
governments have been constructed upon the foundations of consultation and consensus building rather than
competition and conflict (Jedwab, 2002, 77). This, however, presupposes openness and the state accepting nonprofit
organizations as partners in a larger policy process. Numerous analysts do not see such an approach as matching
current reality (Caragata & Basu, 2013, 329–330; Shragge, 2013), while others see more openness in the Canadian
policy process (Burstein, 2010; Tolley, Biles, Vineberg, Burstein, & Frideres, 2011).
120
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
Clearly the dominant governance paradigm concerning state–society relationships, policy development and state–
nonprofit relationships are important for determining the kind of interaction that is likely to shape nonprofit voice.
Contemporary Canadian public policy has been guided by neoliberalism which has structured public administration
through the adoption of NPM (Shields & Evans, 1998). One significant result has been a marketization of the state–
nonprofit relationship where noprofits have been recast as an alternative service delivery agent (Alford & O’Flynn,
2012; Kelly & Caputo, 2012; Shields & Evans, 1998). This relationship has been particularly governed by the state’s
use of short term contract financing of programs which nonprofit organizations are compelled to compete for. The
relationship between the state and nonprofit service providers is reframed less around policy co-production (Alford,
2002) toward one built on vertical control and accountabilities which actually extend the government regulation of the
sector (Phillips and Smith, 2011, 3). Thus, government-funded nonprofits have been characterized as the ‘shadow civil
service’ (Laforest, 2011, 37). The use of contract financing has created competitive quasi-markets for service delivery
(Mclaughlin, Osborne, & Ferlie, 2002). While this has succeeded in restructuring the nonprofit service sector along
quasi-market lines, from a community perspective, many negative consequences have resulted entailing unintended
and undesirable outcomes. Examples include competition that leads to significant fragmentation of services;
insufficient nonprofit providers to promote effective competition (Phillips & Smith, 2011, 3); the short-term nature of
contracts and their under-financing which compromises the ongoing viability of delivery organizations (Eakin, 2005);
and excessive accountability rules that result in more compliant agencies, at the price of excessive administrative costs
and the stifling of innovation; all of which seriously compromises optimal service provision. Problems of
administrative ‘red tape’ have been identified as helping to ‘kill the nonprofit golden goose’ (Smith & Smyth, 2010).
Such administrative accountability challenges have been forcefully raised by the Federal Government’s Blue Ribbon
Panel on Grants and Contributions which is supported by the nonprofit sector (Burstein, 2010: 3) but little in the way of
adoption of these reforms have yet been forthcoming, especially at the national level.
A significant consequence of the contract funding regime for settlement services is that nonprofit NGOs have very
limited resources with which to take on their advocacy role. The agencies are further required to engage in competitive
bidding against each other in order to win a contract. And there is the additional tension created where there is a
‘‘desire to engage in effective advocacy, with the government as their primary target, yet they depend heavily on
government funding’’ (Wayland, 2006, 3). This can result in ‘advocacy chill’. At the Federal level in particular there
has been evidence of such a chill and even threats to the charitable status of some vocal NGO advocates (Douglas,
2012; Tides Canada, 2012). Andrew Griffith, a former CIC senior official, makes note of how political staff in Ottawa
have been looking closely at nonprofit service providers to ensure that they are not misaligned with the policy priorities
of the government (Griffith, 2013).
The economic crisis of 2008 which has brought forward a wide ranging austerity agenda has placed additional
stress on the NGO settlement sector. Rising levels of unemployment and social dislocation among newcomers has
increased demand for services at the very time that settlement funding is being cut (Shields, 2014). This is promoting a
widespread restructuring and ‘rationalization’ of government settlement support (Burstein, 2010: 2) which has further
taxed the capacity of the sector.
Thus the neoliberalization of the nonprofit sector discourages traditional advocacy roles which become framed by
government as special interest activities (Evans & Shields, 2010). But the decentralization and devolution of the state
has opened up gaps which NGOs can fill. Specifically, as the state’s research capacities have been diminished and the
state may be compelled to rely upon more outside input in developing public policy.
Within public administration, the limitations of NPM have spurred the promotion of the New Public Governance
(NPG) model of an emerging pluralist relationship between the state and non-governmental actors (Osborne, 2010).
NPG identifies the need for a shift to horizontal accountability and co-governance while moving away from narrow
command and control, rule compliant structures. The end result is policy co-production marked by collaborative
relationships in which power is shared and where the advocacy role of nonprofit providers is recognized as an
important function (Baldwin & Black, 2008). NPG includes enhanced and more flexible funding supports that have
longer time horizons and which promote networks over cut-throat competition (Phillips & Smith, 2011, 4–6). A
consequence of the shrinkage of state policy capacity is the need for a more collaborative and inclusive practice of
policymaking (Baskoy, Evans, & Shields, 2011).
Partnerships within the nonprofit sector are based on mutual trust and power sharing. However, competitive
contractualization and the resulting marketization of the sector has transformed this culture. The movement toward
NPG would go some distance in constructing more equitable partnerships and more meaningful and less disruptive
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
121
Table 1
Distribution of settlement services policy officials interviews.
Government officials
Ontario
British Columbia
Saskatchewan
Total
Nonprofit officials
5
5
4
6
6
5
14
17 = 31
accountability measures. The question remains as to whether there is evidence of such a shift toward this NPG
paradigm. Examining the nature of the interaction between mid-level government policy officials and NGO policy
actors, and the scope given to nonprofit voices in policy, is the focus of this study. The extent and quality of policy
interaction at this level should provide some measure of the uptake of NPG approaches to policy governance in the
sub-national immigrant services arena. Our findings suggest, however, that meaningful policy engagement between
provincial governments and the NGO settlement sector remains limited.
4. Methodology
The research presented here employed 31 semi-structured interviews with key informants working for non-profit
immigrant settlement services agencies and with policy workers in the provincial government ministry responsible for
co-ordinating and developing policy affecting the sector. Consult Table 1 for the breakdown of interviews conducted
by province.
The government-based interviews were drawn from public servants occupying the ranks of policy and program
advisors, analysts and managers involved in various dimensions of immigrant settlement and integration activities.
The nongovernmental participants came from a range of not-for-profit organizations whose work engaged immigrant
populations as it related to settlement and integration. These nonprofit organizations ranged from smaller frontline
immigrants settlement service agencies to large multi-service organizations to organizations with a more explicit
research, planning and advocacy mandate.
An internet search was used to find potential interview subjects and referrals from earlier interviewees were
sometimes used to identify other potential interview candidates. This was a nonrandom sample. The interviews were
conducted between the summer of 2012 and May 2013. The interview questions followed a semi-structured format but
the interviewer was free to pursue lines of inquiry that arose during the discussion. The interviews were about one hour
in length. All transcriptions were coded to identify key themes and issues using a double blind coding procedure.
The interviews were not designed to be a statistically representative sample but they do enable us to identify and
explore overarching themes, issues and perspectives derived directly from actors engaged in various positions in the
policy process. This provides us with a unique opportunity to capture the lived policy experience of these actors and
develop a rich and deep level of analysis of the content of the interviews.
While the policy capacity of government has been challenged by the shrinkage in the size and resources of the civil
service (Baskoy et al., 2011), the advocacy, research and policy capacities of nonprofit organizations have been even
more constrained due to strict funding rules and funding cutbacks by governments who are the key source of financing
of human and social service nonprofit agencies (Evans, Richmond, & Shields, 2005). Given the lean nonprofit
workforce this entails and the continuous pressure to do ever more with less, few nonprofit organizations have the
ability to devote staff to dedicated policy positions. Indeed, in the three provinces examined here, 67.2% of NGOs
were found to have no staff dedicated exclusively to policy work. In contrast, only 14.5% of government respondents
indicated that there were no dedicated policy staff (Evans & Wellstead, 2013, 71). Consequently, for NGOs, policy
work is very often performed ‘on the side of the desk’.
5. A qualitative examination of policy interaction in settlement services: emerging themes and issues under
‘voice’
The interviews probed the theme of the place and role of the voice of NGOs in immigrant settlement and integration
policy. The goal was to give scope to the voices of those who have experience in engaging with the public policy
122
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
process. This allowed the identification of a number of sub-themes and issues related to the overarching theme of
nonprofit agency voice. While there were different experiences and observations regarding nonprofit actors’
engagement with provincial policy officials, there is also considerable consensus relating to these experiences.
Listening to these voices allow for the exploration of a deeper understanding of themes and issues which are not able to
be fully captured in the raw numbers of surveys. Interviews can provide us with a sense of the meaning behind and
seeing beyond the numbers.
In addressing the question of nonprofit voice, the interviews focused on those from the NGO community. However,
we also looked at the government perspective. These interviews provide insight into the government understanding
and purpose of consultations with non-governmental organizations. To better understand public servants’ perspectives
on such issues is important in order to comprehend how closely government and nonprofit-based views correspond, as
well as to assess the overall possibilities and limitations regarding the policy impact of nonprofit voice in government.
6. What is consultation with external groups for? Is it effective? (government practitioner perspectives)
Gaining a perspective on what government policy officials believe the purpose and objectives of external policy
consultation is and how they assess the effectiveness of such, is of immense practical importance for NGOs.
Consultations are used for a variety of purposes in government. In some cases they are genuinely about gathering
information to inform and shape policy innovation. In other cases, policy directions have been predetermined and the
consultation process is more about discovering and overcoming possible obstacles to the already decided direction of
government policy. If the consultation takes place late in the policy cycle it is almost always of the later type. Still, it is
clear that consultation with the settlement service sector is seen by government policy workers as an important activity.
The information and front-line knowledge of settlement services NGOs is viewed by government as very useful to
them. These agencies are strategically positioned to observe the needs and conditions of newcomer populations and to
enjoy a connectedness and trust in the community in a way that government is not positioned to realize.
Interviews with provincial government policy workers testify to this and the complexity of the relationship. A BC
government informant acknowledged the value of NGO front-line knowledge noting that the agencies ‘‘have access to
a lot of information that we sitting here in our offices typing away’’ do not possess (BCGOV3). An Ontario informant
understood consultation with agencies as being useful but cautioned that the government objectives in conducting such
consultations may not be aligned to the agencies’ objectives. They observed that the effectiveness of the process
‘‘depends to a certain extent, if you genuinely have been given the mandate to involve stakeholders and have
discussions with them’’, this can be ‘‘very helpful in terms of coming to grips with complicated or sensitive policy
issues’’. But ‘‘if it is just a kind of tell us where the land mines are, it is less valuable’’ (OntGov1). A second Ontario
informant added that a key shortcoming was that these consultations are sometimes intended to meet ‘‘internal needs’’
of the government and serve only to better inform deputy ministers and ministers rather than to inform policy
innovation and solve a problem (OntGov2).
The interviews with government policy officials did not provide strong evidence of a robust new public governance
approach to seeking outside advice in shaping policy. Still, according to government-based interviews, openings do
exist in the system where consultation can have an effect and the information about clients and programs remains
valuable to policy officials in helping them shape their own construction policy advice.
7. Is the policy consultation process open or predetermined? (nonprofit practitioners)
Interviews with settlement agency informants reveal a set of perspectives on the nature and effectiveness of their
engagement with government policy officials. With regard to the nature of the policy consultation process virtually all
of the agency-based interviewees were of the view that policy consultations were largely predetermined or that there
was only ‘‘a very limited degree of openness’’ (OntNGO8). Their experience of policy engagement with government
was often simply frustrating. Despite providing what they viewed as relevant information and perspectives that would
benefit policy design, this was too often not heeded. NGO informants across all three provinces shared similar
observations. A BC informant understood consultation as less than sincere as key issues respecting policy design were
‘‘pre-determined’’ and the only genuine aspect of consultation was concerned with the remaining ‘‘minutiae’’
(BCNGO4). An Ontario informant saw such processes as tightly controlled where the government was not interested
‘‘genuine consultation and partnership’’ (OntNGO8). And a Saskatchewan agency worker did not see any form of
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
123
engagement with the government but rather the relationship was one of command and control where service providers
are ‘‘told what to do and that is what we must do’’ (SKNGO1).
There appeared to be some provincial variation regarding the level of consultation with BC displaying a greater
propensity to engage the service agencies in policy discussions and Saskatchewan the least so. In terms of the NPG
image of open and meaningful consultation, the interviews suggest this is far from the reality in the three Canadian
provinces.
8. What is more important the political or bureaucratic part of government in the policy process?
(nonprofit practitioners)
When the question of whether the public service or political side of government is more important in the policy
process, the prevailing view from the service agencies was that the political side of government was a more important
actor in the policy process than the public service. This conclusion derives from a keen awareness of the political
nature of policy-making and the realization that political factors can trump all else.
When probed more deeply, however, beyond single statement responses, many service agency respondents provide
a more complex answer. A more strategic understanding emerges where identifying which level within government is
to be approached, the public service or the political, becomes dependent upon the issue. There is also a realization that
while politicians and political staff tend to have relatively short tenure with a policy portfolio, the public service is a
constant, and hence it is important to develop good working relationships with them. Which side was more influential
varied by province but some balancing of efforts between public service and the political arm was the prevailing view.
Ontario respondents, for example, identified the political side as most influential but also acknowledged the public
service contribution. One Ontario interviewee responded: ‘‘Political. But bureaucrats are also important as they have
influence and they’re more accessible’’ (OntNGO10). A countering view was expressed by a BC agency worker: ‘‘We
have found that our ability to engage at the senior civil servant level can, depending on the circumstance, have more
influence than going the political route’’ (BCNGO2). Another confirmed this, stating ‘‘the bureaucratic level it is very
important’’ (BCNGO1). However, a shift in focus in BC may be underway as another BC respondent observed:
‘‘NGOs in the general area in settlement services have begun to pay more attention to trying to build links with
political staff more than public servants’’ (BCNGO5).
The difference in views between BC and Ontario interviewees may be explained by the efforts the Ontario
government since the Liberals entered government in 2003 to engage the non-profit sector in a cooperative relationship
with the Ontario Government. This was formalized in 2010 with the launch by the Liberal Government of the
Partnership Project which is promoting mutual respect and more flexible and sustaining partnering with nonprofit
providers (Ontario Trillium Foundation and Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, 2011).
9. Use of coalition advocacy (nonprofit practitioners)
Settlement service agencies can amplify their voice by joining together within sector wide umbrella organizations.
Province-wide umbrella associations for the sector speak with a collective voice for the sector’s service providing
agencies. Each of the three provinces have such sector-wide organizations. These sector-wide organizations are
generally more effective in gaining access to government as established lines of communication are already in place. It
is also easier for government to deal with a single sector voice when consulting on an issue rather than attempting to
coordinate consultation with multiple settlement service agencies. A BC informant captured this succinctly saying:
‘‘So the policy engagement work, if it is to be effective, has to be undertaken in more collaborative ways, using
provincial umbrella associations and other bodies to promote and engage and set priorities. The effectiveness of
developing common messaging or common policy areas within the sector means that it is easier for government to hear
what we have to say’’ (BCNGO2).
In addition, an important consideration for individual service agencies is that they are not singularly attached to
particular positions. Their role as a service provider is typically financed, in whole or in part, through government
funds. Being identified as an advocate of a particular policy alternative may make them vulnerable to government
sanction.
The umbrella organizations are also better placed in terms of employing dedicated staff and resources to enhance
capacity for effective advocacy and research – such a level of advocacy capacity is beyond the reach of most service
124
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
providing organizations. Organizational scale and capacity are related. As a Saskatchewan based informant observed:
‘‘As you are larger you have more voice . . . I believe that you are more noticed yes, or we are more considered, yes. But
is it because people are more sensitive or because government is more sensitive or is it because we are bigger? I would
say it is mostly because we are bigger’’ (SKNGO1).
Moreover, in terms of the external forms of advocacy, so-called ‘Big Advocacy’, that involves public education
campaigns, the use of media, and other public oriented activities, the sector wide organizations, for the reasons
expressed above, are simply better placed to engage with government. Of course the ‘Small Advocacy’, involving nonpublic and direct communication with government, is less overtly ‘political’ and is a tactic which both sector wide and
service organizations engage in. In Canada umbrella organizations in the settlement field are, however, also reliant on
government for much of their funding resources, in some cases up to 70% from the CIC alone (information from
correspondence with CIC official December 18, 2013; also see Biles et al., 2011: 231). Such funding dependence can
make even umbrella organizations feel constrained in their ability to criticize state funders.
One point of tension identified in the interviews, was the erosion of trust between service agencies as a consequence
of competitive contracting for government funds. ‘‘There’s also the fear of . . . the competition, of we are all fighting
for the same money, so you are trying to share a common voice, but then we are trying to steal your funding at the same
time’’ (OntNGO10). The tension arises out of the challenge of coming up with a common voice when at the same time
settlement agencies are in competition with one another for the same government funding. The short-term project
based funding model used in settlement services and elsewhere by government compels organizations to compete with
one another for limited funds. As these funds have been cut back further as a consequence of austerity, the competition
has become fiercer. This makes it difficult for agencies to cooperate on other fronts.
10. Role of research (nonprofit practitioners)
The place of research in policy advocacy was given less emphasis by service agency personnel interviewed here. In
contrast, they identified networking to strengthen their influence on policymaking as their most important activity
(Evans & Wellstead, 2013, 78). Service provider agencies very often simply lack the capacity to undertake their own
research. As one interviewee stated, it was a rather simple reality service agencies in the sector confront: ‘‘the reality
being that we have minimal [research] capacity’’ (BCNGO5). This is particularly true for smaller NGOs in the sector,
hence their reliance on umbrella organizations to take on such roles. However, the interviews with agency respondents
clearly expressed that research was still viewed as valuable, even if it was produced outside of the sector: ‘‘it is difficult
for us to come up with research from our organization because we don’t have a research budget . . . so we depend on
research that is done by the academics’’ (SKNGO2, 5). One interviewee stressed the importance for the sector to
develop an ‘‘evidence based advocacy’’ approach in exercising their policy voice role: ‘‘it’s incumbent on civil society
to not fall into the trap of just sort of using opinion and rhetoric, that it is important to have . . . evidence based
advocacy’’ (OntNGO8). There was broad recognition of the value that government places on interventions on policy
issues that are informed by strong research. It was equally clear that many agencies recognized and lamented their lack
of capacity to be more effective in this regard: ‘‘We would wish to have more money for research that we could engage
with’’ (BCNGO3). It is significant that it is only the Quebec Government that provides direct funding to NGOs to do
research and advocacy so that they can ‘‘carry out social action for purposes of change’’ (OCASI & CISSA, 2014: 15).
Other levels of government have been called upon to adopt funding reforms which would support the enhancement of
the sector’s research and voice capacities to more effectively engage with government (Burstein, 2010: 2–3).
An interesting and important development within the nonprofit sector regarding the research dimension is how
many nonprofit organizations have developed links to university research and researchers. The vast majority of the
interviewed nonprofit informants indicated that their organizations made active use of university research work that
helped inform their advocacy with government. As one informant stated: ‘‘We’re able to access that research
[academic collaboration with Metropolis researchers looking at resettled refugees] to help us in the formulation or
input of policy development related work’’ (BCNGO2).
Moreover, a good number of these organizations have actually joined with academic researchers to conduct their
own studies. The work of Metropolis Canada and its regionally based centers of excellence on immigration and
settlement was especially singled out as an important source of relevant research and a focal point for nonprofit–
academic research partnerships. The Metropolis network composed of immigration scholars and government policy
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
125
and NGO settlement practitioners has been important for deepening the connections between the sectors (Shields &
Evans, 2012).
The value of university research to the sector is significant. The view of one Saskatchewan respondent is equally
representative of views held across provinces: ‘‘If there is a possibility to connect with the university so that we can
give more credibility to the research we will do that’’ (SASKNGO3). The benefits to service agencies in the sector are
multi-fold. First, given the limited independent research capacity, the ability to make use of existing research and to
even partner with academics for targeted studies works to enable service agencies to bring research into their voice role
and augmenting their limited capacity. Second, by connecting to university research agencies are acknowledging that
their interventions with government are enhanced by adding a stronger research dimension. And finally, by linking
with university research, agencies are able to better position themselves in an effort to enhance the validity and
effectiveness of their voice in government. In terms of validity of voice this is enhanced because the university
connection counter balances, at least to some degree, the idea often held in government that nonprofit views are not
well informed by evidence and are value charged and self-interested. Consequently, the interest on the part of agencies
to connect with university researchers has become increasingly important.
11. Concluding observations
Interviewed public servants and NGO personal report that consulting with non-government agencies, like the
NGOs themselves, play a rather constrained role in the formulation of public policy in immigrant settlement services.
The experience of settlement services NGOs suggests that policy consultation with government results in only very
limited possibilities to influence policy. In the NGO view, most decisions have already been made prior to their
becoming engaged in the process. Nonetheless, all sides still see value in NGO-government consultation as it keeps
lines of communication open, government policy officials receive important information on newcomer communities
and their settlement and integration, and NGOs can have important impacts in shaping program design and delivery at
the operational level.
NGOs recognize that the policy process is inherently political in nature. In fact it is this political character which
makes the exercise of NGO voice in the public arena highly problematic. Since settlement sector NGOs are dependent
on government funding for program delivery NGOs are very hesitant to bite the hand that funds them. The
restructuring of government financial support for settlement agencies into a competitive contract funding model
guided by NPM axioms has stripped away much NGO capacity to make independent decisions with respect to
spending. Nonprofit bodies too often come to be seen as ‘special interest’ organizations and government consultations
with the NGO sector are often hollowed out as a consequence. The cold hand of advocacy chill remains very evident
among settlement sector organizations.
While developments, such as the weakening of government policy capacity and the hesitant and limited take up of
NPG ideas in government policy circles, has sometimes made outreach to and consultation with NGOs somewhat
more desirable, the structures of neoliberal governance models remain embedded in Canadian provincial government
and consequently NGO voice remains muffled. There is, however, a strong desire among nonprofit immigrant
settlement organizations to amplify this voice in the service of the communities they serve. They have worked to do
this by greater use of coalition advocacy through sector wide umbrella organizations and partnering with academics to
bring more of an evidence-based approach to amplify their voice. These measures have been limited in their
effectiveness, however, because of the enduring legacy of neoliberal governance. Service provider agencies,
nonetheless, continue to value the importance of their voice role. Much of this voice is, however, expressed through the
use of ‘small advocacy’ activities over more public and critical ‘big advocacy’ approaches. Nonprofit organizations
have attempted to amplify their voice by adopting collective voice strategies such as the utilization of umbrella
organizations for advocacy. They are also seeking to augment their research capacity by partnering with university
researchers.
Both government policy workers and their agency-based counterparts recognize the value of research for evidenceinformed policy advice. Settlement sector organizations remain very interested in and have made investments, even
with their limited resources, in research in an effort to enhance their capacity to engage in more strategic policy
interventions with government. As noted in the interviews. NGOs make use of research including qualitative evidence
in their policy interventions. The use of more evidence-based advocacy interventions is also helpful in mitigating the
claim that they are value charged ‘special interest’ policy interventions.
126
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
The NGO settlement sector has a policy voice which it is attempting to amplify. This effort, however, is restrained
by a number of factors. This includes the enduring legacy if NPM, an austerity agenda which threatens NGO
government financing, the considerable level of restructuring of the settlement service delivery, and the rapid and
significant changes to immigration policy at the Federal level in Ottawa that has been bereft of consultations with the
public or government and NGO stakeholders (Alboim and Cohl, 2012; Aliweiwi and Laforest, 2009).
Some opportunities exist to increase the volume and effectiveness of NGO voice in policy in immigrant settlement.
There is increasing dialogue within some policy and government circles regarding the need to engage more widely and
in more meaningful ways with actors in policymaking, with sub-national levels of government often leading the way.
Early evidence of this can be found in forums such as the National Settlement Council and after a 10 year absence the
‘‘Vision 2020 National Settlement Conference’’ (2013, http://vision.systemsinteractive.ca/) a national conference
involving multilevel stakeholders with the purpose of discussion possible future pathways to settlement programming
in the context of immigration reform. The annual National Metropolis Conference is also a forum where government
policy officials and NGOs are able to connect on safe neutral ground to build connections and share ideas (Shields &
Evans, 2012).
It is also important to note that the grounded knowledge that nonprofit organizations hold about immigrant
newcomers and their settlement and integration in Canada and in local settings means that nonprofit settlement sector
organizations will remain important to the policy process. This is particularly the case at the provincial level of
government given that immigration will continue to be central to regional economic development and demographic
sustainability objectives and that immigrant settlement and integration occurs at the sub-national level.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for
generously funding this research project as well as the contributions of our Research Assistants, Olivia Cimo and Farah
Prasadcolah.
References
Alboim, N., & Cohl, K. (2012, October). Shaping the future: Canada’s rapidly changing immigration policies. Toronto: Maytree.
Alford, J. L. (2002). The necessity and difficulty of trust in partnerships between government and non-government organisations. International
conference on knowledge, networks and joined-up government, International Political Science Association: Research Committee on Structure
and Organisation of Government, Melbourne: The University of Melbourne, Centre for Public Policy39–56.
Alford, J. L., & O’Flynn, J. (2012). Rethinking public service delivery: Managing with external providers. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Aliweiwi, J., & Laforest, R. (2009). Citizenship, immigration and the new conservative agenda. In R. Laforest (Ed.), The new federal policy agenda
and the voluntary sector: On the cutting edge (pp. 137–153). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Atkinson, M., Béland, D., Marchildon, G. P., McNutt, K., Phillips, P. W. P., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). Governance and public policy in Canada: A
view from the provinces. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Baldwin, R., & Black, J. (2008). Really responsive regulation. Modern Law Review, 71(1), 59–94.
Baskoy, T., Evans, B., & Shields, J. (2011). Assessing policy capacity in Canada’s public services: Perspectives of deputy and assistant deputy
ministers. Canadian Public Administration, 54(2), 217–234.
Biles, J., Tolley, E., Andrew, C., Esses, V., & Burstein, M. (2011). In J. Biles, M. Burstein, J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R. Vineberg (Eds.), Integration
and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada (pp. 195–246). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Burstein, M. (2010). Reconfiguring settlement and integration: A service provider strategy for innovation and results. Ottawa: CISSA/ACSEI
Canadian Immigrant Settlement Sector Alliance Alliance canadienne du secteur de l’établissement des immigrants.http://integration-net.ca:81/
infocentre/2010/007_1e.pdf.
Caragata, L., & Basu, S. (2013). Civil society and the vibrancy of Canadian citizens Canadian studies in the new millennium, (2nd ed.). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press304–345.
Carter, S., Plewes, B., & Echenberg, H. (2005). Civil society and public choice: A directory of non-profit organizations engaged in public policy.
Toronto: Maytree.
CBC. (2013). Canada’s foreign-born population soars to 6.8 million. CBC News, May 8. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/05/08/censusstatistics-canada-household-survey.html.
Creese, G. (1998). Government restructuring and immigrant/refugee settlement work: Bringing advocacy back in. RIIM Working Paper Series, No.
98-12.
Douglas, D. (2012). Thoughts on advocacy and the role of service organizations. CERIS Blog, November 7, https://cerisontario.wordpress.com/
2012/11/07/advocacy-service-organizations/.
Eakin, L. (2005, March). The policy and practice gap: Federal government practices regarding administrative costs when funding voluntary sector
organizations. Ottawa, ON: Voluntary Sector Forum.
B. Evans, J. Shields / Policy and Society 33 (2014) 117–127
127
Evans, B., & Shields, J. (2010). The third sector and the provision of public good: Partnerships, contracting and the neo-liberal state. In C. Dunn
(Ed.), The handbook of Canadian public administration (2nd ed., pp. 305–318). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Evans, B., & Wellstead, A. (2013). Policy dialogue and engagement between non-government organizations and government: A survey of processes
and instruments of Canadian policy workers. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 7(1), 60–87.
Evans, B., Richmond, T., & Shields, J. (2005). Structuring neoliberal governance: The nonprofit sector, emerging new modes of control and the
marketization of service delivery. Policy and Society, 24(1), 73–97.
Garcea, J. (2011). Settlement and integration in Saskatchewan: Evolution of organizational roles, completeness and capacity. In J. Biles, M. Burstein,
J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R. Vineberg (Eds.), Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada (pp. 133–164). Montreal:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Gormley, W. T., Jr., & Cymrot, H. (2006, March). Strategic choice of child advocacy groups. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 102–122.
Griffith, A. (2013). Policy arrogance or innocent bias: Resetting citizenship and multiculturalism. Toronto: Anar Press.
Halligan, J. (2011). NPM in Anglo-Saxon countries. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public
management (pp. 83–96). Farnham, Surrey and Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Co.
Hiebert, D., & Sherrell, K. (2011). The integration and inclusion if newcomers in British Columbia. In J. Biles, M. Burstein, J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R.
Vineberg (Eds.), Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across Canada (pp. 77–101). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Jedwab, J. (2002). Representing identity: Non-formal political participation and the role of the state in Canada. Bringing worlds together seminar
proceedings (pp. 73–94).
Kelly, K., & Caputo, T. (2012). Community: A contemporary analysis of policies, programs and practices. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Laforest, R. (2001). Funding policy capacity. 30th annual ARNOVA conference.
Laforest, R. (2011). Voluntary sector organizations and the state: Building new relations. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
Mclaughlin, K., Osborne, S. P., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). (2002). New public management: Current trends and future prospects. London: Routledge.
OCASI & CISSA. (2014). The role of immigrant and refugee serving umbrella organizations in settlement and integration. Toronto: OCASI.
February 6.
Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants (OCASI) & COSTI. (1999). The development of service and sectoral standards for the immigrant
services sector: Discussion document Retrieved from: http://ceris.metropolis.net/Virtual%20Library/other/holder1/cover.html.
Ontario Trillium Foundation & Ontario Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. (2011). The partnership project: An Ontario government project to
create a stronger partnership with the not-for-profit sector. Toronto: Government of Ontario.http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/english/pp/docs/
partnership_project_report.pdf.
Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2010). The new public governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London:
Routledge.
Phillips, S., & Smith, S. R. (2011). Between governance and regulation: Evolving government-third sector relationships. In S. D. Phillips & S. R.
Smith (Eds.), Governance and regulation in the third sector: International perspectives (pp. 1–36). New York: Routledge.
Reitz, J. G. (1998). Warmth of the Welcome: The social causes of economic success for immigrants in different nations and cities. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Richmond, T., & Shields, J. (2005). NGO-government relations and immigrant services: Contradictions and challenges. Journal of International
Migration and Integration, 6(Summer/Fall (3/4)), 513–526.
Saskatchewan Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment and Immigration. (2009). Saskatchewan statistical immigration report. Regina:
Government of Saskatchewan.http://www.economy.gov.sk.ca/sk-immigration-statistical-report-2009.
Shields, J. (2014). Constructing and ‘liberating’ temporariness in the Canadian nonprofit sector: Neoliberalism and nonprofit service providers. In R.
Latham, V. Preston, & L. Vosko (Eds.), Liberating temporariness? Migration, work and citizenship in and age of insecurity (pp. 255–281).
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Shields, J., & Evans, B. (1998). Shrinking the state: Globalization and the ‘‘reform’’ of public administration. Halifax: Fernwood.
Shields, J., & Evans, B. (2012). Building a policy-oriented research partnership for knowledge mobilization and knowledge transfer: The case of the
Canadian metropolis project. Administrative Sciences, 2, 250–272.
Shragge, E. (2013). Activism and social change: Lessons for community organizing (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Siemiatycki, M., & Triadafilopoulos, T. (2010). International perspectives on immigrant service provision. Toronto: Mowat Centre for Policy
Innovation, School of Public Policy and Governance, University of Toronto.
Smith, S. R., & Smyth, J. (2010). The governance of contracting relationships: ‘Killing the golden goose’. In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The new public
governance: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance (pp. 270–300). London: Routledge.
Statistics Canada. (2013). Immigration and ethnocultural diversity in Canada: National household survey, 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Catalogue No. 99-010-X2011001: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99-010-x/99-010-x2011001-eng.pdf.
Tides Canada. (2012). Defending advocacy and dissent in Canada. Tides Canada, September 27: http://voices-voix.ca/en/facts/profile/tides-canada-0.
Tolley, E., Biles, J., Vineberg, R., Burstein, M., & Frideres, J. (2011). Introduction: Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across
Canada. In J. Biles, M. Burstein, J. Frideres, E. Tolley, & R. Vineberg (Eds.), Integration and inclusion of newcomers and minorities across
Canada (pp. 1–16). Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Vengroff, R. (2013). Implementing immigration policy: Provinces and states in comparative perspective. Public lecture for the Johnson Shoyama
School of Public Policy, Saskatchewan March 6; u-tube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XykQVeJGbok.
Wayland, S. V. (2006). Collaboration and conflict: Immigration and settlement-related. Advocacy in Canada. Policy Matters, No. 26 Toronto:
CERIS, June.
Mulé (2011)
Vol. 2, No 1
Spring / Printemps 2011
5 – 23
Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research
Revue canadienne de recherche sur les OSBL et l’économie sociale
Advocacy Limitations on Gender and Sexually Diverse
Activist Organizations in Canada’s Voluntary Sector
Nick J. Mulé
York University
ABSTRACT
Registered charities are restricted when engaging in advocacy, whereas Canadian nonprofits face a far
more difficult time when fundraising. The impact of such limitations on Canadian gender and sexually
diverse1 activist organizations is one example of the implications on Canada’s democratization process.
Despite the efforts of the Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI), and updated political activity policies, Canada
lags behind both the U.K. and U.S. in recognizing and legitimizing advocacy as an important contribution
to its democratic process. An organized challenge of the system at the political and legal level is called for
to address this issue.
RÉSUMÉ
Les organismes de bienfaisance enregistrés font face à des contraintes lorsqu’ils défendent une cause,
tandis que les organismes sans but lucratif rencontrent de nombreuses difficultés pour amasser des
fonds. L’impact de ces contraintes sur les organisations militantes de genre et de sexualité diversifiés
n’est qu’un exemple de répercussion sur le procédé de démocratisation du Canada. Malgré les efforts
déployés par l’Initiative sur le secteur bénévole et communautaire (ISBC) et malgré la mise à jour de
politiques sur l’activité politique, le gouvernement du Canada a du retard par rapport à ceux du RoyaumeUni et des États-Unis en matière de reconnaissance et de légitimation de la défense de causes en tant
que contribution importante à son processus démocratique. Pour aborder cette question, nous sommes
amenés à remettre en question le système de façon méthodique sur les plans politique et juridique.
Keywords / Mots clés
Activism; Advocacy; Gender and sexually diverse populations; Voluntary sector
Militantisme; Défense d’une cause; Populations de genre et de sexualité; Secteur bénévole
5
Mulé (2011)
INTRODUCTION
This article looks at how Canada regulates the voluntary sector with regard to charitable purpose and
political activities in determining charitable status and the ability to advocate for social change. Viewing
advocacy as an integral aspect of the concept of charity, I explore how such a premise is aggravated by
the doctrine of political purposes. The Voluntary Sector Initiative (VSI) in which the Canadian government
engaged in joint talks with the voluntary sector is referenced, and updated political activity policies by the
Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) are examined and analyzed. The population focus is specific to
Canadian gender and sexually diverse activist organizations, yet the findings have implications across the
voluntary sector. Through interviews and content analysis, this paper exposes the limitations placed on
Canada’s voluntary sector regarding advocacy due to restrictive regulations (Brooks, 2001; Hall et al.,
2005; Pross & Webb, 2003; Scott, 2003; Webb, 2000) and how gender and sexually diverse advocacy
groups are disadvantaged regardless of voluntary sector status.
Organized efforts to advocate and lobby for social change in Canadian society on the part of minority and
disenfranchised groups in the voluntary sector are limited by regulation (Canada Customs and Revenue
Agency, 2003a). The legal status of voluntary organizations (e.g., charitable, or nonprofit incorporated)
constrains the extent to which they may advocate or lobby for change.2 Although it has been argued that
charitable regulations have expanded to include clarification on permitted political activities (Elson,
2007/2008), I contend that these changes represent incremental improvements at best, while limitations
persist. Underscoring such limitations is what is termed in the legal literature as the “Doctrine of Political
Purposes.” This doctrine draws a fine line between political and charitable purposes, deeming the latter
ineligible for charitable status if its objects are heavily based upon the former (Parachin, 2008). A critical
deconstruction of a series of historical judgments on legal cases of this matter have been critiqued for
falling short of legal justification (Brooks, 1983; Carter & Crawshaw, 1929; Gladstone, 1982; Michell,
1995; Parachin, 2008; Webb, 2000; Wright, 1937), particularly with regard to charities’ advocacy work in
furthering public benefit (Cotterrell, 1975; Dunn, 2008; Fridman, 1953; Ontario Law Reform Commission,
1996; Parachin, 2008; Sheridan, 1973).
Ultimately, what I bring into question are the limitations placed on charities, and by extension nonprofits,
in the voluntary sector. Regulatory constraints concerning political speech and expression based on
charitable works limit participation in the political process of democracy (Dunn, 1996). So, why are
charitable activities delineated from political purposes such as reforming the law (Dunn, 2008)? This
paper is predicated on the role of charity as involved in community engagement and the creation of a
civic voice that is permitted to enter the political engagement process on a level playing field, both within
the voluntary sector and between sectors (e.g., private sector) as part of a healthy democracy. Such a
premise questions why civil society–based organizations that wish to advocate within a social justice
mandate are not permitted to do so within the context of registered charity status and its associated
benefits.
NONPROFIT ADVOCACY
Two role dichotomies have been identified within the voluntary sector: an increased role in service
delivery, much of it redirected from the public sector; and the role of organizations that challenge the
system (government) through social change and associated funding concerns (Lindsay, 2001; O’Connell,
1996). Yet, because there is a voluntary sector dependency on private sector, and particularly public sector,
funding of core activities and projects, the level of advocacy activities is limited. This is further exacerbated
6
Mulé (2011)
for state “advocacy structures” (i.e., arm’s-length governmental bodies) due to a conflict between program
effectiveness and repeated program mandate changes by government funders (Malloy, 1999).
Even when there is a delineated difference between the voluntary sector group and the state,
partnerships that form between the two create an environment in which advocacy activities become
muted. This is due to voluntary sector “community” partners, who are awarded service provision contracts
that make them accountable to both service recipients and the state (Basok & Ilcan, 2003; Walzer, 1995).
Voluntary organizations enter contractual agreements that impose restrictive governance (Phillips &
Levasseur, 2004), in essence institutionalizing the relationship with negative implications on advocacy
and autonomy (Laforest & Phillips, 2001). The subsequent impact is one in which actors within the
voluntary sector increasingly become overly responsible service providers at the expense of being
advocates for social justice (Ilcan & Basok, 2004; Laforest & Orsini, 2005).
Some such actors form collective identities representing agreed-upon interests, creating political
agencies that counter dominant groups and political discourse (Jenson, 1993, 1995; Kymlicka, 1996).
Such collective voices demand a form of citizenship that includes not only benefits but also a right of
representation both to and by the state (Jenson & Phillips, 1996). The gender and sexually diverse
populations have formulated such groups in Canada, with many having attained charitable status.
Historically, Canadian lesbian and gay activists have had to carefully weigh their strategies between
philosophical leanings and pragmatic achievements (Adam, 1995; Rayside, 1998; Ross, 1995; Warner,
2002). Regardless of which strategies are chosen, the concept of explicit representation (Jenson, 1995)
is an important one to the gender and sexually diverse movement (Mulé, 2006; Smith, 2005a), reflected
in the demand for infused recognition in policy (Mulé, 2005).
Distinct from the legal justice of human rights protections for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals—yet still
absent for transsexuals, transgenders, and intersex3—there is much to focus on with regard to social
justice for all these populations (Kinsman, 1987, 2006; Mulé, 2006; Smith, 1999; Warner, 2002). The
legalization of same-sex marriage and the right to adopt can create a false impression of “equality,”
particularly when the gender and sexually diverse face and experience numerous social justice issues.
These social justice issues include bullying and bashings, stigmatization and low self-esteem, and
employment barriers; STIs such as HIV/AIDS; and broad health concerns such as depression, substance
use, addictions, and risk of suicide. Intersectional concerns may be age-based, involving children, youth,
adults, and seniors who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT); ethno-racial cultural
conflicts; (dis)ability challenges; and religious-based crises.
The current neoliberal environment discourages local gender and sexually diverse organizations from
engaging in advocacy activities, creating a focus on service provision (Carroll & Ratner, 2001; Smith
2005a, 2005b). The gender and sexually diverse movement at the federal level has taken a legal
approach, reinforcing individualism and class politics in line with neoliberalism (Smith, 2005b). Thus,
despite legal recognition for some,4 the specified and particularized needs of the gender and sexually
diverse communities from a social justice perspective continue, and as such full citizenship in civil society
remains elusive (Sears, 2005). Social justice work by NGOs is often hampered by capacity concerns
(Laforest & Orsini, 2005) of which gender and sexually diverse social justice groups are not exempt,
operating in under-resourced environments in terms of funding, personnel, volunteers, and time. This can
have a negative impact on their capacity to address policy concerns in a timely and appropriate fashion.
This neoliberal environment, coupled with a history of oppression and disenfranchisement (Adam, 1995;
7
Mulé (2011)
Smith, 1999; Warner, 2002), has resulted in a systemic lack of recognition in policy (Mulé, 2005, 2007),
reinforcing the marginalization of gender and sexually diverse populations.
Critical social work theories (Fook, 1993; Moreau, 1979, 1990; Moreau & Leonard, 1989; Mullaly, 2007)
recognize the dialectical relationship between the state and its structures with individuals and their
communities in that both benefits and oppression can be experienced (Allan, 2003; Pease & Fook, 1999).
On the one hand there is the attainment of recognition (via charitable and/or nonprofit incorporated
status) to address a social issue via service delivery. On the other hand there is the frustration of not
being able to address the “causes of the causes” due to limited advocacy opportunities. Specific to
gender and sexually diverse populations, queer liberation theory (Altman, 1971; Bronski, 1998; Vaid,
1995; Warner, 1999; Warner, 2002) speaks to agency utilized by individuals and organized social
movements that recognizes, respects, and dignifies their difference as a valid contribution to the diversity
of society, contributing to a project of emancipation as undertaken by progressive members of the LGBT
communities. This liberation strategy is distinct from the norm within the membership of the LGBT
communities who are inclined to work within structured systems toward neoliberalized notions of
acceptance and respectability (Duggan, 2003; Richardson, 2005) and are thus far less inclined to
question such systemic structures and their implications on cultural diversity (Mulé, 2006, 2008). A fused
critical queer liberation and critical theory lens identifies limitations, questions the status quo, and seeks
systemic change through emancipation. Premised on such a lens, what is the impact of existing CRA
policies on advocacy/political activities on charities, and by extension, nonprofit civil society organizations
such as those in gender and sexually diverse communities?
METHODOLOGY
Data gathered for content analysis in this study targeted existing policies, standards, and guidelines
reviewed from a structural systemic perspective inclusive of current regulations on the Canadian
voluntary sector particular to advocacy, political activities, and recognition of diversity in Canada between
April 2001 and May 2010. The Internet served as a major source in the gathering of these data. This
critical discourse analysis focuses on interviews conducted with leading Canadian gender and sexually
diverse social justice organizations and how they are implicated by the regulation of Canadian charities.5
“ADVOCACY” AND THE CONCEPT OF CHARITY
At the core of the relationship between charity and social justice is the legitimacy of advocacy activities.
The extent of advocacy activity by charities has been historically and legally restricted based on the
doctrine of political purposes. What is argued in this paper is that if charities are to effectively address
their mandates they must take on the “causes of the causes” that frustrate their ultimate purpose, and this
requires the ability to advocate for social reforms. By placing advocacy restrictions on charities, their work
is often reduced to service provision, and the capacity to affect the social changes required to adequately
address the very issues the charity has been created to address is lost. Thus, I will argue that restricting
nonpartisan advocacy is antithetical to a charity’s capacity to fully carry out its good works.
From a legal perspective, the doctrine of political purposes has enormous influence on this issue,
establishing the principle that advocacy activities by charities are incongruous. Doctrine arguments are
based on tradition and legal authority, the incapacity of the judiciary to rule on public benefit as derived
from political purposes (Drassinower, 2001), and the ascription of differentiation between charity and
politics (Parachin, 2008). Such arguments conceptualize charities as needing, for the most part, to
8
Mulé (2011)
separate themselves from political matters. Political matters are often controversial, as though charities
and their good works are incompatible with controversy (Harvie, 2002; Sacks, 1960). The very essence of
issues experienced by the gender and sexually diverse communities has been seen by many as political
and controversial, yet these communities are not alone in the voluntary sector as being deemed as such.
What is posited here is a concept of charity that permits nonpartisan political activity involving advocacy
that is in keeping with a charity’s purposes. This argument is premised on the principle that, based on the
importance and relevance of their work, charities have a valuable voice to contribute to society through
the democratic process. Placing advocacy restrictions on such charities, regardless of their mission or
where they are positioned on the political spectrum, limits their freedom of speech and expression, and
curtails their ability within the democratic process to reform law (Dunn, 1996, 2008) or engage in
influencing social change.
CRA POLICIES
In 2003, the CCRA implemented a new policy statement, Political Activities, that defines advocacy as,
“demonstrated support for a cause or particular point of view. Advocacy is not necessarily a political
activity, but it sometimes can be” (CCRA, 2003a, p. 15). Political purposes in this policy is based on the
legal definitions, “to support a political party or candidate for public office; or to seek to retain, oppose, or
change the law or policy or decisions of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country” (CCRA,
2003a, p. 16). The policy extends to political activities, giving charities more leeway in conducting public
awareness programs. This includes explicit communications, calls for political action, and intentions of
activity toward retaining, opposing, or changing a law, policy, or decision at any level of the Canadian
government or a foreign country (CCRA, 2003a). Also, this policy implemented a sliding scale of
expenditures for political activities ranging from 10% to 20%, based upon revenue levels of charitable
organizations. Charities with revenues in excess of $200,000 are capped at 10% and otherwise vary with
income down to the lowest category (less than $25,000) at 20% (CCRA, 2003a). This change contrasts
with the previous across-the-board 10% expenditure limit.
The CCRA subsequently issued a policy statement Registering Charities that Promote Racial Equality
(CCRA, 2003b) that essentially broadens the definition of charitable purposes to include organizations
that promote or educate about racial equality, work to eliminate racial discrimination, and foster positive
race relations in Canada. Thus, the promotion of racial equality is now recognized by the CRA as
analogous to mental and moral improvement, which falls under the fourth charitable purpose of “other
purposes beneficial to the community.” Organizations could also qualify under the purpose of
“advancement of education.” The rationale provided in the policy for this expansion cites both U.K. and
U.S. policies, but selectively zeroes in on race relations issues, ignoring the broader anti-discrimination
policies that exist in both countries. More recently, the CRA issued another guidance document,
Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration (2010), in which upholding human rights is
considered charitable under all four heads (see above) and can be considered a charitable purpose in its
own right under the fourth head, “other purposes beneficial to the community that are considered
charitable at law.” At the outset, this guidance appears to be more comprehensive than the more
specified focus of “promoting racial equality,” yet it too has its limitations.
Three gender and sexually diverse organizations in Canada, each operating with different nonprofit
models, offer insights into how they function under voluntary sector regulations. Their respective
mandates and means of pursuing social justice for the gender and sexually diverse dictated which model
9
Mulé (2011)
each settled for in order to meet their purposes. Egale Canada is a national multi-issue LGBT rights
nonprofit organization, which set up a charitable arm to allow it to pursue its advocacy work under the
former and public education work under the latter in order to reap the benefits of the charity system. This
model notwithstanding, the restrictions on advocacy are no less felt:
I mean it’s—obviously it’s a headache. And it’s an administrative headache, in terms
of having to run parallel organizations when you have limited resources. So, there
are huge issues with respect to it. And the tax receipts, the filing, the administrative
stuff is a nightmare … It restricts what we can do as an organization … Because
when you want to raise money for a court case, people don’t get a tax receipt, and a
lot of people donate because of tax receipts … It takes us away from our advocacy
work, because we constantly have to figure out where we’re going to get our next
dollar in order to advance LGBT rights … So, I think it’s another way of tying our
hands, with respect to advocating for LGBT rights in Canada … we’re certainly not
given any encouragement or help from government in advancing human rights.
(Egale Canada Representative, September 9, 2010)
The Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition (CRHC), also a national LGBT rights organization with a focus
on the broad health and well-being issues of these populations, sought and received registered charity
status. From its process in attaining such status to its ability to carry out its purposes, the role of
advocacy has been impacted:
[O]ne of the problems that we ran into initially was in our application for charitable
status with Revenue Canada. We had to end up changing some of our purposes to
remove terms like “advocacy,” so we had to change that to “educate” in order to get
our charitable tax status … Certainly it affected the language and in some ways it
seemed to me to be a little petty to change the word “advocate” to “educate,” to
basically say the same thing, just a change of word … the problem we had around
our mandates and mission statements with Revenue Canada certainly delayed us
getting charitable tax status so that was problematic … It certainly causes us to be
careful about the advocacy work we do I mean, certainly, when we’re dealing with
government, and I think that we’ve tried to do a bit of advocacy with Health Canada
and the Public Health Agency of Canada to again get them to address the health
issues. And there are Revenue Canada’s rules that one has to be careful around the
amount of lobbying that they do, certainly political lobbying or what they consider to
be political lobbying … I think at times that they’re problematic. We work with our
community to solve our own issues; but governments at all levels also have the
responsibility to address our populations’ issues, so I think at times the [political
activity] rules have the capability of hamstringing organizations. (Canadian Rainbow
Health Coalition Representative, May 22, 2009)
The provincially based Queer Ontario (successor to the now dissolved Coalition for Lesbian and Gay
Rights in Ontario [CLGRO]) is a multi-issue progressive, radical nonprofit group that advocates for
LGBTQ Ontarians’ rights. Strong adherence to their mandate for advocacy and political activities have
caused CLGRO/Queer Ontario to question how the voluntary sector is structured and critique the inherent
limitations placed on social justice groups:
10
Mulé (2011)
You see this is how groups such as our predecessor CLGRO and our current entity
Queer Ontario came to the decision to be nonprofit organizations and not formally
seek charitable status. These organizations both had “advocacy” right in their
respective mission statements. Both were and are highly principled organizations
that are strongly committed to their goals and values. We always had a strong sense
then, when we were CLGRO, and even now as Queer Ontario, that we will not
compromise on advocating for the rights of LGBT people from a progressive queer
perspective. Thus, we were not prepared to reshape ourselves to fit governmental
regulations at the expense of our work. Now, this is not to say the consideration of
becoming a charity wasn’t taken up, because it was within CLGRO but ultimately not
pursued because it was apparent our mission statement would raise red flags with
CRA. It was at this point that CLGRO started raising questions about the system.
Why is advocacy, or does advocacy raise alarm bells for the government? Why
would fighting for the rights of LGBT people in Ontario not be seen as charitable? Is
this not a human rights issue? Why are human rights issues not a concern?
(Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario/Queer Ontario Representative,
October 3, 2010)
As is further discussed in the next section, the intricacies and nuances of Canada’s charity policies
maintain a conservative ideology that does not necessarily embrace change. It can at minimum contain, if
not outright constrain, the progressive dynamic voices of its voluntary sector, regardless of whether those
voices are coming from the conservative or liberal ends of the political spectrum, as all are restricted by
the doctrine of political purposes affecting the sector.
DISCUSSION
Operating from the premise that the voluntary sector (and the varying organizations therein: charities,
nonprofits, etc.) has an important role to play in contributing to social justice, critical social work theory
calls on actors in civil society to be accountable to those whom they serve (Dominelli, 1997; Fook, 1993;
Mullaly, 2002). Such accountability is not reserved for service provision only, but includes addressing
systemic and structural issues that can create and perpetuate social injustices for individuals and
communities (Carniol, 2010; Adams, Dominelli, Payne, 2009; Mullaly, 1998). This is a deeper level of
accountability that goes beyond merely tending to the symptoms of social problems known as “band aid
solutions” and getting to the root of issues known as the “causes of the causes” via advocacy for social
change.
Yet, it is precisely at this juncture that the values of social justice conflict with current CRA policies. Social
justice, which values fairness, equality, equity, dignity, and diversity, for example, is not always aligned
with the parameters of legal justice. This is not to say the pursuit of social justice (i.e., human rights) is
uncontroversial, but rather part of the role of civil society in a democracy is to identify, raise, and educate
about such issues and to grapple with them as a charitable purpose that will ultimately benefit society.
Canada’s parliamentary democracy neither facilitates nor encourages political activism, particularly when
compared to the U.S. republican democracy (Belfall, 1995). The structural apparatus that underpins the
voluntary sector, in essence, restricts the extent to which charities may undertake advocacy activities. By
extension, the resources of nonprofits are restricted as they cannot issue tax receipts for donations,
negatively implicating their ability to fundraise.
11
Mulé (2011)
These systemic limitations are of particular relevance to the gender and sexually diverse communities
who only attained legal recognition in human rights legislation based on sexual orientation (Adam, 1995;
Smith, 1999; Warner, 2002) over the past 35 years in Canada but are still pursuing gender identity rights.
Long-fought advocacy achieved these legal victories, but now with most human rights battles having
been won on the legal justice front, there are many more challenges on the social justice front.
Complicating these challenges is the observation that the gender and sexually diverse communities are
non-monolithic. Queer liberationists (e.g., Queer Ontario) are considered the most progressive segment
of the gender and sexually diverse communities for their discontent with the status quo, their challenging
of heterosexist hegemony, and their demand for recognition and legitimization based on difference. As
such, advocating for a liberationist type of social justice within a larger neoliberalized gender and sexually
diverse community (Duggan, 2003; Richards, 2005; Smith, 2005b)—Egale Canada, for example—that
seeks acceptance, respect, and the opportunity to assimilate (hence working with the system) proves
challenging (Mulé, 2006) for queer liberationists. The latter find themselves contesting the very political
activity restrictions the CRA outlines by undertaking such social justice advocacy.
Although the federal government is slowly broadening its interpretation of the four heads of charity, and
particularly of purposes beneficial to the community, the CRA’s means of doing so continues to be
conservative and restrictive. The 2003 policy document Registering Charities that Promote Racial
Equality (CCRA) was curious in that this commendable guidance was nevertheless limited to the one
social location in the absence of so many others in multicultural Canada. What underscores the design
and development of this policy is an implicit ideologically driven heterosexist discourse that fails to
acknowledge or recognize gender and sexually diverse populations. It would be another seven years
before the CRA would issue its document Upholding Human Rights and Charitable Registration (2010). In
both cases the jurisdictions of the U.K. and U.S. are cited as having similar policies and in both cases the
CRA was selective in what it chose to highlight.
Given that legal precedent establishes that charitable purposes are premised upon the formal policy
acknowledgment of an accepted public benefit, and that generalized anti-discrimination work and the
promotion of human rights has been accepted as such in the U.K. and U.S., Canada’s initial restricted
focus on anti-racism and its more recent and conservatively named Upholding Human Rights and
Charitable Registration (CRA 2010) could better reflect the breadth of Canadian human rights legislation
(ILGA, 2000) and its potential for expansion (CCEW, 2002a, 2003b; CCRA 2003a, 2003b; Charity
Commission News, 2003; IRS, 2002). Both of these policies place a heavy emphasis on upholding
existing law, underscoring the limitations on its Political Activities policy (CCRA, 2003a) that charities
operate under. In addition, a review of the permissible purposes and activities of the aforementioned two
policies emphasize education/service provision, preaching, research and analysis, and public awareness
as acceptable. Although these activities do verge on advocacy, charities cannot explicitly pressure the
government to enact or alter legislation.
The CCRA’s Promotion of Racial Equality policy document (2003b), with its named sole focus on the
elimination of racial discrimination, falls short of, and thus is contradictory to, the broader parameters of
Canadian human rights legislation. For example, opposing homophobia and heterosexism would also be
conforming to existing laws, yet this is explicitly absent from this policy. The CRA’s Upholding Human
Rights and Charitable Registration (CRA, 2010) expands the terrain to include other minorities such as
the sexually diverse (e.g., lesbians, gays, and bisexuals). However, this policy’s implicit stance of
providing a public benefit based on existing law excludes minorities who are not legally protected from
discrimination. Therefore, minorities based on gender identity, such as transsexuals, transgenders, and
12
Mulé (2011)
intersex, would fall outside the purview of this policy given their lack of protection in Canadian human
rights legislation.
The representative system in Canada, contrary to both the U.S. and U.K., has not adapted to interestfocused groups and their representation in the democratic process (Pross, 1986). Given this, how do
voluntary sector regulations ensure that all charitable purposes are respectful of Canadian human rights
legislation? It would be beneficial if the CRA adopted what the U.S. and the U.K. currently have. Both
countries include definitions in their charitable purposes that broadly address discrimination and promote
human rights, domestically and abroad, as a valued contribution to democracy and social development.
And although the U.K. and U.S. also have similar limitations on political activities, the iteration of their
respective policies is not nearly as constrictive. The CRA’s Upholding Human Rights and Charitable
Registration (2010) focuses on the limits rather than the potential achievements of the policy.
In Canada, advocacy legitimacy is based upon tax rules rather than broader principles of democracy,
resulting in an unclear concept of advocacy premised on highly restrictive court definitions (Phillips,
2003b). Yet it is noteworthy that the CCRA made an attempt to expand both its definition of permissible
political activities and its corresponding expenditure limits (CCRA, 2003a). The former contributes to a
clearer understanding of the extent to which charities may engage in advocacy work involving political
activities and the latter is an attempt at levelling the internal field of charities with regard to resource
expenditures of larger versus smaller charities. Although this policy provides some degree of clarification
regarding political activities, its impact is rather limited in the absence of an expanded definition of
charitable purposes. A mathematical calculation of the expenditure limits reveals a valiant attempt at
addressing the imbalance of influence based on the size of charitable organizations, but one with limited
success as larger charities are disproportionally advantaged.
The attempts of CRA to further clarify what is and is not permissible for charities to engage in regarding
human rights, political activities, and thus advocacy can be described as meagre at best, for such policies
continue to be undermined by the persistence of the doctrine of political purposes. A doctrine has been
developed through the courts over the past few centuries based on a series of legal test cases on the role
of political purposes, often conflated with advocacy, in the work of charities. Attempts at distinguishing
charity and politics (i.e., partisan versus nonpartisan politics, political activities, lobbying, advocacy, and
influencing the public) via jurisprudence have been found to be inconsistent, with some cases being
superficially justified and others historically inaccurate (Parachin, 2008). The rationale for this doctrine
includes being a time-honoured practice, the authority of the law as it currently stands, judicial incapacity
to rule on public benefit derived from political purposes (Drassinower, 2001), and charity and politics
being described as merely “just different” (Parachin, 2008). Although the doctrine allows for a certain
amount of political activity, what remains elusive to charities is the indeterminate line at which such
activity no longer is permissible. This dilemma is further complicated by the asserted incompatibility of
charity and controversy (Harvie, 2002; Sacks, 1960). The inconsistency of the doctrine of political
purposes completely negates the reality that for some charities controversy will be at the core of their
purposes. This issue also intersects with the concept that promoting a point of view is political while the
advancement of religion is charitable and the tension that lies therein (Parachin, 2008) is only mentioned
here as this issue is much greater than the purposes of this paper.
Advocacy and the LGBT movement in Canada
The Canadian Rainbow Health Coalition, Egale Canada, and Queer Ontario are three of a limited number
of gender and sexually diverse organizations that take up political advocacy work, and as such they are
13
Mulé (2011)
at the forefront of the LGBT movement in Canada. These three gender and sexually diverse
organizations each operate under different models within the voluntary sector. The Canadian Rainbow
Health Coalition sought and obtained charitable status, but not without having to revise the iteration of its
mission and having to closely monitor its advocacy activities as a result. Egale Canada essentially runs
as two organizations, one of which is established as a registered charity. This not only doubles the
administrative work and limits its focus on advocacy, but also requires it to closely self-monitor the
activities that are advocacy based so as not to attract suspicion about its purposes.
Queer Ontario quite consciously opted to be a nonprofit organization due to advocacy being an integral
part of its mission, and based on its predecessor’s (CLGRO) work on the issue both internally and to a
limited extent within the VSI (see earlier CLGRO/QO quote). Yet Queer Ontario operates on a very
limited budget due to this decision. In essence, what is revealed here is that regardless of their
operational models, all three are experiencing limitations in being able to fully carry out their respective
mandates involving advocacy work. The implications for the progress of the gender and sexually diverse
movement are concerning. Although the limitations expressed can be extrapolated to other social justice
movements within the voluntary sector, for the gender and sexually diverse their general oversight and
awkward referencing during the VSI (VSI, 2002a) and resulting CRA policies (CCRA, 2003b; CRA, 2010)
demonstrate an ongoing sense of not being fully recognized.
Analytically, the themes of power imbalances to cultural repression, from discriminatory privilege to
subjective politics and systemic bias, both within the voluntary sector and its regulators are worthy of
closer examination in four contexts. First, the limitations inherent in Promotion of Racial Equality (CCRA
2003b), and the way the VSI structured and referenced racial and cultural groups, both excluded
numerous other groups protected by Canadian human rights legislation. Second, the non-recognition of
lesbians, gays, and bisexuals as a cultural group defined by sexual orientation is culturally repressive and
limiting. Third, ignoring legally unprotected gender minorities such as transsexual, transgender, and
intersex people sets up a systemic bias based upon privilege (CRA’s 2010 Upholding Human Rights and
Charitable Registration). Lastly, by focusing narrowly on definitions of racism and racial discrimination
(CLGRO, 2003) or upholding current human rights laws, these policies undermine the experience of
inequality felt by numerous minority groups and individuals with intersectional minority status. In essence,
the kind of barriers gender and sexually diverse populations face in general society is mirrored in the
voluntary sector’s review and current structure. Ultimately, this can hinder attempts at reducing
homophobia, transphobia, and heterosexism in Canadian society.
To be adequately heard within Canada’s democratic society, gender and sexually diverse communities
require the capacity to advocate on a level playing field. This lack of capacity is reflected in the absence
of a formal concerted voice coming from gender and sexually diverse communities across Canada.
Although Egale Canada had identified the Voluntary Sector Initiative as an issue (Egale Canada, 2003), it
did not take any formal steps to address its concerns at the time, partly due to a preoccupation with
attaining same-sex marriage rights. CLGRO, because of its limited resources, was only able to monitor
the VSI process, make submissions to the CRA’s 2003 proposals on political activity and the elimination
of racial discrimination (CLGRO, 2003), and host a community forum. CLGRO has since dissolved and its
successor Queer Ontario (2010) lists advocacy and activism within the voluntary sector as one of its
numerous concerns:
[P]eople are not fully aware of the complexities of the voluntary system and how it
works, including people within the LGBT communities.… This speaks to the kind of
14
Mulé (2011)
in-depth analytical processes CLGRO would engage in, that many other LGBT
groups didn’t. It’s why we became interested in the process of the Voluntary Sector
Initiative (VSI). Even there, had we the resources to contribute more time and
attention to it, we would have, but ultimately we only provided feedback on
guidelines CRA produced in the midst of the VSI and we also hosted a public forum
in our communities on the issue. And as it turns out, even that limited input on our
part, turned out to be the only input from an organized LGBT body, as far as we
know. (Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario/Queer Ontario
Representative, October 2, 2010)
Because of how charities are regulated, efforts to change laws and/or government policies and influence
public behaviour and community opinion, on the part of all of its actors, is highly controlled and restricted
(IMPACS, 2001b; IMPACS & CCP, 2002). This restrictive atmosphere keeps registered charities and the
people they serve systemically oppressed. The lack of recognition of gender and sexually diverse
populations within broader voluntary sector policy only further silences their voices and limits their impact
in affecting social change outside the courts. Even beyond gender and sexually diverse populations, the
current Conservative government has created a hostile environment for organizations that engage in
advocacy work (Brennan, 2010; Ward, 2010).
Implications for the voluntary sector
The current political environment is an unfortunate one for the broader voluntary sector as it will require
political will at the federal level to address the changes required to better acknowledge the importance of
advocacy in the work of the sector. The limiting effects on advocacy work undertaken by the gender and
sexually diverse communities can be extrapolated to the voluntary/nonprofit sector at large. Although the
Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector, under chair Ed Broadbent, brought this
issue to the government’s attention and CRA policies were subsequently updated to reflect broader policy
changes, no federal party has taken up the explicit issue of advocacy and its limitations in the voluntary
sector (Panel on Accountability and Governance in the Voluntary Sector, 1999).
Legally, charities have been generally conceptualized as separate from advocacy and associated political
activities as argued in the doctrine of political purposes (Parachin, 2008). Challenges to these legal
constraints are required—with the plural emphasized—as some specific cases have done just that (see
Parachin, 2008). Clearly more is required if the broader legal context is going to shift. A major
disadvantage to nonprofits without charitable status is their inability to raise funds in the absence of
“credibility” that comes with being a charity. What will instigate such changes will be a collective voice of
charities and nonprofits within the voluntary sector that are most directly affected. Ideally, a collaborative
effort on the part of the major sectors (public, private, and nonprofit) could encourage a concerted
change, yet this scenario is highly unlikely given differing interests and losses that would be felt by some
in levelling the field. The most affected organizations (recognizing that not all are affected) will need to
organize and inform themselves, then strategize on how and where to call for a reconceptualization of
charities and nonprofits that see the value and importance of advocacy as an integral and indispensable
part of their work for social justice within Canada’s democratic system.
CONCLUSION
Although several attempts have been made to modernize the voluntary sector in Canada, this study
found that the designation of charitable purpose, the lack of definition of “advocacy,” and what is
15
Mulé (2011)
considered permissible political activity restricts both registered charities and nonprofits in their
participation in policymaking. Contributing to these restrictions is how the registered charities are
regulated under the Income Tax Act and an adherence to...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment