With a looming recession and increased attacks on civil society, Canadian sector leaders report that there is a resolve – a sense that if a fight is ahead, it is a fight worth having.
As election day approaches, Canada’s non-profit sector is feeling anxious and vulnerable. It fears that its right to advocate is running into political interference. It looks at the chaos south of the border with well-founded alarm. Yet, despite all this, sector leaders report that there is also a resolve, a sense that if a fight is ahead, it is a fight worth having. In short, the sector is also having its “elbows up” moment.
“We are facing a moment of existential crisis as a country, and philanthropy is part of that,” says Jean-Marc Mangin, the president and CEO of Philanthropic Foundations Canada. “We are moving from making sense of the moment to collective action,” he says. “There is a real appetite to step up. That feeling of the ‘elbows up’ collective moment we’re feeling in the country is being felt in philanthropy.”
We are facing a moment of existential crisis as a country, and philanthropy is part of that . . . There is a real appetite to step up.
Jean-Marc Mangin, Philanthropic Foundations Canada
But there are distinct headwinds. The anxiety comes from a looming recession that would mean a dip in donations and government funding. Foundations are dealing with investment losses along with the rest of the country. A recession means greater need at a time when the sector has fewer resources to help.
The vulnerability stems from the unprecedented attack on civil society in the United States from a Donald Trump administration that seems bent on outlawing empathy.
And the wariness springs from a blunt attack on the Century Initiative, a charitable think tank, by Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who has vowed to shut it down. Many feel that this is part of a worrying trend toward the demonization of charities whose missions do not align with the views of political parties – a trend that has been detected in both major parties.
Putting sector concerns in the electoral window has always been a challenge, says Bruce MacDonald, president and CEO of Imagine Canada. “This election is unique,” he says. “There is one issue that starts with two Ts: Trump and tariffs. There are not that many other issues getting much attention in a short campaign. It was already difficult, but with a campaign that is almost exclusively focused on these two issues, it is even more challenging.”
Imagine Canada has released a sector platform with 26 recommendations and areas of focus it wants the new government to deal with in the first 100 days, including affordability, housing and homelessness, the environment, mental health, labour, and the resilience of the sector. MacDonald says the sector wants to work alongside government as part of a solution to the looming crises. That will include the formation of a rapid response team, inspired by a similar U.S. initiative, bringing key policy and advocacy players together to respond quickly to government statements or initiatives or work with government on amendments to legislation so the sector is not left holding its hands in the air saying, “Hey, you forgot about us.”
“We should be able to work with any government regardless of political stripe,” MacDonald says. “The risk to the sector is not ideological, but more pragmatic. Both of the main parties have signalled fiscal restraint moving forward.” Poilievre has long preached austerity, and Liberal leader Mark Carney’s cutting of the cabinet from 39 to 24 (eliminating some portfolios that deal with diversity) sends a clear signal about fiscal oversight.
We should be able to work with any government regardless of political stripe.
Bruce MacDonald, Imagine Canada
The looming recession and the Trump attacks on civil society will hit the sector hard, Mangin says. “The Trump administration is a clear and present danger to Canada, and the postwar order, which has been critical to Canada’s democracy, security, and prosperity, is being rapidly destroyed. It was already frail, but it is now disintegrating before our eyes.”
The sector has been here before. During COVID, resources dwindled but demand increased. A tariff-driven recession will place the same strains on a sector that has not fully rebounded from pandemic shutdowns. However, according to polling by the Angus Reid Institute, Canadians are split on the need for austerity versus acceptance of a deeper federal deficit to protect programs such as national dental care and the embryonic beginnings of a national pharmacare program.
Continued attacks on the rule of law and civil society south of the border have shaken the sector in this country as well. Universities, legal firms, independent media, and immigrants are just some of Trump’s targets. “Even empathy as a core societal value is under attack and is being portrayed as a sign of weakness,” Mangin says. Indeed, Trump has called non-profits “slugs and sleazebags.” Elon Musk says U.S. non-governmental organizations were making “crazy money” off the homeless. He has called the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) “a criminal organization.”
Universities and some U.S. law firms have been accused of rolling over to Trump’s threats and have acquiesced to his demands to protect their government funding and access. Many in the philanthropic sector, feeling under siege, have gone quiet or scrubbed any mention of diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI) from their websites and mission statements.
But the MacArthur Foundation has announced it will increase its disbursements from 5% to at least 6% over the next two years to help a sector under attack, a move it estimates will mean an increase in spending of about US$150 million over two years, on top of the US$400 million it pays out annually. Mangin says a similar move is being discussed by several Canadian foundations who will be more agreeable to viewing the 5% disbursement quota in this country as a floor going forward.
The context in Canada is different, Mangin says, because the sector does not walk around with a target on its back like its U.S. counterparts. But he agrees it should expect more scrutiny in what is anticipated to be a period of government austerity.
If the sector can speak with confidence about its competence and its ability for kindness, then everyone will see themselves in it.
Andrea Nemtin, Social Innovation Canada
“We have a different path available to us than the U.S.,” says Andrea Nemtin, CEO of Social Innovation Canada, “one rooted in collaboration and peace, order, and good government. Collaboration and niceness are Canada’s superpowers,” she says. “What do we do when we’re under attack? We take care of each other. Canadians know how to take care of each other.” Key to that is a social sector, Nemtin says, that is valued by a new government as a tool to drive prosperity for Canadians, not just as something “nice to have. If the sector can speak with confidence about its competence and its ability for kindness, then everyone will see themselves in it.” Any government that seeks to meet its goal in social policy needs to invest in the sector, she says.
But the chaos and danger in the United States is beginning to spill over into Canada. Some major Canadian fundraisers refused to attend the annual Association of Fundraising Professionals conference, in Seattle, citing concerns about harassment and potential detention at the border and the growing economic boycott of the United States, which is having an impact on its tourism industry.
Plus, there is a homegrown concern brewing in the Canadian sector – that trend toward the politicization of charities from both Conservative and Liberal governments in past years. Some have been demonized, others faced audits, but it is a trend that must be halted, sector leaders say. They point to moves such as the threat of the Justin Trudeau government to revoke charitable status of organizations that funded pregnancy counselling services that did not include abortion as an option and a recent recommendation of a Senate committee to revoke the charitable status of any organization campaigning against the East Coast seal hunt. Former prime minister Stephen Harper moved to restrict the political activities of charities, and former Alberta premier Jason Kenney launched a provincial inquiry targeting environmental charities that opposed the oil and gas sector in his province. As U.S. toxicity seeps across the border, Mangin says charities helping refugees or providing services to 2SLGTBQIA+ Canadians are under harsher scrutiny.
There is a homegrown concern brewing in the Canadian sector – that trend toward the politicization of charities from both Conservative and Liberal governments in past years.
But the biggest red flag is Poilievre’s vow to “stop” the “radical” Century Initiative, a registered charity and non-partisan think tank that advocates for responsible population growth in Canada, with a target population of 100 million by 2100. It equates population growth with a stable and secure Canada, but Poilievre sees it as part of a Liberal plot to turbocharge immigration at a time when support for immigration in this country is notably waning. The Conservative leader points to Mark Wiseman, chair of the board of Century Initiative and a member of Carney’s Canada-U.S. advisory team, as evidence of some type of Liberal conspiracy to open the immigration floodgates. Bloc Québécois leader Yves-François Blanchet first raised the Century Initiative in the last Parliament, introducing a motion to urge the government to reject its proposals.
“Century Initiative is not political, but we have become a target of convenience,” CEO Lisa Lalande said in a statement to the Toronto Star. “Efforts to mischaracterize our work are politically opportunistic and do a disservice to voters. We remain committed to facts, informed policy, and Canada’s future.”
Poilievre cannot stop Century Initiative, but he could order Canada Revenue Agency audits to chill its activities while it spends money and time complying with government orders. It was a method used by the Harper government against environmental charities.
“The prime minister of Canada is not the King of Canada,” says former senator Ratna Omidvar, a sector advocate who sits on the Century Initiative board. “King Trump may be able to do that, but we have laws here. You cannot shut down a charity without due process. If one advocacy sector is shut down today, tomorrow it could be an environmental charity and the next day a religious charity.”
Our country is better when organizations are engaged in public policy advocacy and debate. The response should not be ‘shut down the voice.’
Jean-Marc Mangin
To disagree with an advocacy organization’s recommendations is fair game, Mangin says, but delegitimizing the organization is out of bounds. If a charity is duly registered and follows all the rules and obligations, MacDonald says, “a response to ‘we disagree’ should not be ‘shut it down.’ Our country is better when organizations are engaged in public policy advocacy and debate. The response should not be ‘shut down the voice.’”
“The sector should be freaking out,” says one sector leader who has been in discussions regarding the attack on Century Initiative but asked not to be identified.
With the political demonizing of charities here and the toxic social discourse in the United States, non-profits, regardless of their missions, become targets of emboldened social media trolls and harassment, and threats put further stress on those working in the charitable sector.
Omidvar, who has described herself as an “accidental Canadian,” says she has been very gratified to see this quiet, self-effacing country go “elbows up” in a crisis and willing to tackle some large problems. It is a lesson the sector is growing to embrace as well. “Trump has really done us a favour,” Omidvar says.
One of the greatest fears of the sector revolves around a global trend to cut foreign aid. Although USAID represents roughly 1% of the U.S. budget, Trump and Musk – the unelected head of his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – have frozen crucial work in countries in need of help, ranging from Haiti to Yemen, Afghanistan to South Sudan, Nepal to the Philippines. The United States is – was – the planet’s largest provider of foreign aid, at US$71.9 billion in 2023, more than half of it funnelled through USAID. Trump has vowed to eliminate 83% of USAID’s projects, says he will cut its workforce from 10,000 to 294, and has suggested he could kill the agency by the summer, its remaining work rolled into the State Department. The United Kingdom has also slashed aid budgets, Belgium has announced cuts, and others have signalled that aid will be tied to their national interests.
Now is not the time for Canada to be turning inward.
Kate Higgins, Cooperation Canada
In the Canadian campaign, Poilievre has vowed to “cut wasteful foreign aid to dictators, terrorists, and multinational bureaucracies” and use the savings for tax cuts and defence spending. But Canada’s foreign aid budget is $6.9 billion, so even if the Conservative leader cut it all, he would still fall short of his goals on the tax and defence side.
Kate Higgins, CEO of Cooperation Canada, says the USAID cuts could be “catastrophic” for millions worldwide.
In an open letter to political leaders, Higgins, whose organization represents more than 100 non-profits at home and abroad delivering humanitarian aid and working in democratic development, says this is not the time for Canada to turn from the world stage. She says that in 2025 more than 300 million people worldwide could require humanitarian assistance. “Now is not the time for Canada to be turning inward,” she says. “It’s a time for us to be engaging with the world and diversifying the partnerships and communities we are engaging with globally.” The USAID cuts have been “devastating” to those in need globally, she says, and the unpredictability of the cuts also affects those Canadian organizations on the ground that partner with those who receive funding through USAID, requiring changed strategies and delivery methods for the Canadians.
In the wake of Trump’s election, Canada – and all its sectors – needs to distinguish itself and demonstrate that it will not follow the U.S. path, Higgins says. Humanitarian aid is in the country’s best interests, she says. “We understand that when the world prospers, Canada prospers, and when the world is secure, Canada is secure.”
