Canada’s
Voluntary Sector
and Public Policy
SYMPOSIUM REPORT
July 2011
Max Bell Foundation
Executive Summary
Few of us think of it very much, but
public policy touches the lives of Canadians in
innumerable ways every day. The decisions
and actions of public authorities – whether
governments of various levels, or other public
institutions – have powerful shaping effects
on our lives.
As citizens, we should rightly ask
about the shaping effects that impact the
decisions of public authorities. For those of
us who work within or have a key interest in
the voluntary sector, the role our sector plays
in impacting public policy is an essential
concern. We share with public authorities a
commitment to the well being of Canadian
society. We often work with or alongside
governments or public authorities to deliver
on that commitment. Voluntary sector
organizations (VSOs) have invaluable
expertise that can be brought to bear to
improve public policy.
And many VSOs do just that.
Canadians benefit from a long history of
engagement between the voluntary sector
and public authorities that has helped inform
and shape what governments and public
institutions do. One of the appendices to this
report lists 84 examples of such engagement,
and that’s just a starting point.
In the same manner that many VSOs
seek to engage in public policy development,
many elected officials and public servants
welcome the help. They understand the
knowledge, experience, and vitality within
the voluntary sector as indispensible to
effective public policy decision making.
On the other hand, many VSOs are not
lending their voices and expertise to public
policy development. For some, this is
perfectly appropriate, as doing so would not
make strategic sense. For others, the
strategic value of participating in public
policy development in the pursuit of their
missions may not yet be clear. And finally,
some who want to engage in public policy
may lack of resources or capacity.
In April of 2011, forty-five
representatives of Canada’s voluntary sector
gathered in Calgary to focus on contributions
made to public policy by the voluntary sector.
The group came together to deepen their
understanding of this issue, to identify the
most effective ways to improve the capacity
of the sector to contribute to public policy,
and to explore collaborations to move
forward.
A common reference point for the two
days of conversation was the following
definition of policy capacity:
Policy capacity is the ability to develop
and communicate useful advice on public
issues we care about to governments, the
media, institutions, corporations, and other
interests in ways that have a reasonable
chance of affecting the course of their
decisions. This includes advocacy capacity,
or the ability to persuade governments to
adopt the policies one is promoting.
VSOs get engaged in public policy to
leverage their efforts into much greater
impact. They do it in many different ways,
including convening stakeholders, conducting
Page 1
demonstration projects, and networking with
leaders and decision makers.
Effectively confronting complex public
policy problems requires that multiple
diverse perspectives are brought to bear.
This entails collaboration – both within the
nonprofit sector, and across sectors. For this
reason, trusting relationships and genuine
dialogue are at the core of effective public
policy work.
Moreover, symposium participants agreed
that engagement itself is a success. Building
trust is creating a store of political capital
that can be drawn upon in the future.
There are a range of training and
support programs underway across the
country that aim to improve the policy
capacity of Canadian VSOs. Taken together,
they help VSOs:
understand how governments work
access and interpret credible evidence
effectively communicate and
collaborate
understand the latitude permitted
them under CRA’s advocacy rules
In general, good public policy advice is
feasible, likely to be effective, and doesn’t
require public authorities to take
unwarranted political risk.
There are risks too for VSOs who set
out to help shape public policy. They may
alienate donors who don’t see negotiation
and compromise as part of an effective
strategy. Public policy development is a long
process with often uncertain outcomes.
Some VSOs will find an easier alignment in
the pursuit of more certain and near-term
objectives.
Despite these risks, symposium
participants were emphatic that VSOs should
continue to play a critical role in public policy
development. For Canadian society as a
whole, such efforts are an opportunity to
reinvigorate democracy, to engage citizens in
a deeper understanding of the choices and
trade-offs facing their governments, and to
develop and fine tune policy decisions that
will ultimately lead to a better society for all
Canadians.
Success in public policy development
can take many forms, from driving an issue
up the public agenda to working out the
details of effective implementation of a policy
decision. Each VSO will have its own
strengths to contribute, and should gauge its
success according to where in the public
policy cycle its intervention was made.
Symposium participants lauded these
programs, and argued strongly for more of
them. At the same time, they realized that
improved policy capacity will amount to little
without the necessary financial support from
funders, or without commitments of the
management and Boards of voluntary sector
organizations to stick with public policy work
over the longer term.
As an important next step, symposium
participants identified the need for widely
available in depth case studies to
demonstrate how VSOs have successfully
contributed to public policy development.
Max Bell Foundation and a number of
partners have committed to this task, and will
launch a series of such case studies in late
2011.
To conclude, Canada has a network of
dozens of individuals and organizations from
across the country who share a strong belief,
rooted in evidence and experience, that VSOs
can and do make important contributions to
public policy in Canada, for the betterment of
all Canadians. That network has a strong
interest in growing and further developing
the policy capacity of VSOs.
Page 2
This paper was prepared by Allan Northcott, Senior Program Officer at Max Bell Foundation. The
paper reports on the results of a symposium held in Calgary, Alberta in April of 2011. The
symposium focused on the roles of Canada’s voluntary sector in the development of public policy.
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author alone, and are not necessarily
shared by the Max Bell Foundation’s Board of Directors, advisers, and collaborators. Permission to
use or reproduce this report is granted for personal or classroom use without fee and without
formal request provided that it is properly cited. Copies may not be distributed for profit or
commercial advantage. The report can be downloaded from Max Bell Foundation’s website
(www.maxbell.org).
© Max Bell Foundation
Page 3
Introduction
The mission of Max Bell Foundation
is to encourage the development of
innovative ideas that impact public policies
and practices. The Foundation’s Directors
and staff pursue that mission in a number
of ways, including providing grants to
charities, participating directly within other
charitable organizations that engage in
public policy, and by providing training for
charities in how to better understand and
contribute to the public policy process.
policy analysts and advisors to deputy
ministers. Also included were professors
from a number of Canada’s leading
universities that have been doing research
and educating students about how best to
play a role in public policy decision making.
Appendix A provides the full list of
participants.
The group came together with the
following objectives:
1. To deepen their shared
understanding of the roles that
voluntary sector organizations have
played, and could play, in the
development of public policy in
Canada.
There are many Canadian
organizations with an interest in the roles
of the voluntary sector1 in public policy.
Most are known to each other, and many
have worked together on specific projects.
Rarely, however, have they gathered with
the purpose of sharing insights around
their common interest, comparing
priorities, and considering a coordinated
way forward. In late 2010, Max Bell
Foundation began planning such a meeting.
On April 7 and 8, 2011, forty-five
people from across Canada met in Calgary
to join a conversation about the relations
between Canada’s voluntary sector and the
development of public policy. Their
collective insights are summarized in this
report.
A variety of voluntary sector
organizations (VSOs) were represented,
from funders to service providers to think
tanks. Among the participants were people
with experiences in government, from
1
Readers may prefer a different term, as did several
participants: “non-profit sector,” “charitable sector,”
“civil society,” and “third sector” have all been used to
describe that set of organizations whose purpose is to
provide a public benefit, and which do not seek to
accumulate wealth.
2. To identify the most effective ways
to help improve the capacity of
voluntary sector organizations to
inform public policy in Canada.
3. To explore possible collaborative
efforts - among voluntary sector
organizations and with governments
- that will improve the capacity of
VSOs to effectively engage in the
public policy process.
The plan for addressing these
objectives was simple. Day one of the
symposium was launched by a plenary
address by David Elton of Max Bell
Foundation, the text of which appears
below (Appendix B). Dr. Elton’s address
was followed by a panel of experts who
shared stories of how their organizations
have contributed to the public policy
enterprise. Participants then spent the
remainder of the day in loosely structured
conversations in small groups.
To begin day two, a rapporteur
reported back to the group on highlights of
Page 4
the first day’s conversations. Then a panel
of experts discussed a variety of programs
intended to improve the policy capacity of
Canadian VSOs. Participants then re-joined
small groups for a second round of
conversations before returning to plenary
for an opportunity to offer concluding
inputs.
A common reference point for the
two days of conversation was the following
definition of policy capacity:
Policy capacity is the ability to develop and
communicate useful advice on public issues
we care about to governments, the media,
institutions, corporations, and other
interests in ways that have a reasonable
chance of affecting the course of their
decisions. This includes advocacy capacity,
or the ability to persuade governments to
adopt the policies one is promoting.
Keynote Address:
Strengthening Voluntary
Sector Organizations’
Contributions to Public
Policy
Dr. David Elton, president of Max
Bell Foundation, launched the symposium
with a keynote address.
Highlights
The idea of bringing the insights of
voluntary sector organizations to bear on
the public policy process has a long history,
and has been supported by governments
and non-profit organizations alike. The
idea is as vital today as it has been at any
point in the last twenty years.
“Public policy” should include not
only governments, but also nongovernmental entities that operate in the
public interest.
Thanks to the work of a handful of
dedicated note-takers, all of the
conversations were documented so they
could form the basis for this report. Max
Bell Foundation would like to thank those
who played this important role.
The Foundation would also like to
thank the table hosts, panelists,
moderators, and rapporteur, without whom
the symposium would not have been
possible.
Finally, we would welcome any
comments you may have on this report, or
on the issues it raises. Please don’t hesitate
to contact Max Bell Foundation
(www.maxbell.org; tel: 403-215-7310).
How we understand and frame our
contributions to public policy is as
important as our specific content expertise.
In general, good public policy advice is
feasible, likely to be effective, and doesn’t
require unwarranted political risk.
Public policy contributions from
charities tend to focus on provincial and
municipal governments more than they do
the federal government.
There are innumerable examples of
VSOs playing important, and sometimes
leading roles in the development of public
policy.
Page 5
Max Bell Foundation’s Public Policy
Training Institute is an in-depth
professional development experience for
charities who understand contributing to
public policy development to be an
important part of how they pursue their
missions. There are a range of other
training and support programs underway
across the country. We have much to learn
from each other, and should aim to
continue making such training and support
as useful as we can.
Panel One: Non-profits and
Public Policy: Reports
from the Field
The first panel of the symposium
was moderated by Peter Warrian of Lupina
Foundation. It featured presentations by
Veronica Lacey (The Learning Partnership),
Al Etmanski (PLAN Institute), and Marlo
Raynolds (Pembina Institute). Each panelist
reported on their experience as a leader of
a VSO engaged with the public policy
process.
Highlights
VSOs get engaged in public policy to
leverage their efforts into much greater
impact. They do it in a number of ways,
including convening and networking with
leaders and decision makers and
conducting demonstration projects.
The development of good public
policy increasingly involves organizations
outside of government. Governments need
the innovation and energy of VSOs to make
better public policy decisions.
Among the current challenges is that
we are confronting public policy problems
characterized by complexity, and doing so
in an time of increasing austerity.
Complexity requires humility: we
cannot assume that our beliefs about a
problem and how it may be solved can
remain the same as we engage with others
to solve the problem.
The complexity of public policy
problems requires that we are adaptive and
innovative in our approaches.
Effectively confronting complex
public policy problems also requires that
multiple perspectives are brought to bear.
This entails collaboration – both within the
nonprofit sector, and across sectors.
The basic stages of doing public
policy work are: (1) awareness building;
(2) problem definition; (3) reviewing
options for solutions; (4) implementing a
solution; and (5) evaluation. It’s highly
unlikely that any single organization can
play an effective role in all phases, so it
becomes important to bring together a
collaboration of organizations that can each
contribute the right thing at the right time.
At the core of effective public policy
work are genuine, trusting relationships
and genuine dialogue (as opposed to simply
“spreading the word”).
Engaging with public policy always
involves contingency. Outcomes are
uncertain because they are negotiated in a
dynamic process, and public policy
decisions often produce unintended
consequences.
Page 6
Success can be
gauged in a variety of ways,
depending on what
contribution an
organization is making to
the public policy process,
and what stage that
process is at in its cycle.
Over the longer term,
however, success may be
measured by the allocation
of resources to a problem,
whether those resources
are financial, human,
organizational, or otherwise.
●
●
●
By collaborating, both
VSOs and governments
alike stand to deepen
their understandings
of public problems and
potential solutions.
development. The ultimate
benefit is the creation and
implementation of policies
that improve the well being of
Canadians.
Faced with challenging
and complex public problems,
it is evident that neither
government nor any other
sector, alone, can generate
and implement solutions.
● ●
VSOs, partly because of their
experience “at the coal face”
of social issues, can help to ensure that
public policies are relevant, realistic, and
effectively implemented.
●
Consultation Session One:
The State of the Art
The first set of conversations among
participants focused on the current state of
Canada’s voluntary sector in terms of its
interest in and capacity to contribute to
public policy.
Participants quickly concluded that
in referring to “the voluntary sector” and to
governments, we are dealing with highly
diverse bodies and that generalization may
be misleading, if not impossible. In
particular, the term “voluntary sector”
embraces charities, advocacy organizations
speaking for their members or others,
public service contractors, and a range of
associations and other bodies through
which citizens organize and engage to
address concerns, mobilize people, or hold
governments accountable. Conversations
proceeded with that caveat.
Risk and Reward
Participants saw clear benefits for
both parties of collaboration between VSOs
and governments in public policy
By collaborating, both VSOs and
governments alike stand to deepen their
understandings of public problems and
potential solutions. Participants also
agreed that such collaboration could help to
reinvigorate Canada’s democracy.
But collaboration is not without risk.
Participants raised concerns that VSOs may
alienate some of their supporters by
engaging collaboratively with governments,
which requires compromises. They also
noted that, because public policy
engagement is a long game with uncertain
outcomes, VSOs that work with
governments could find themselves having
allocated scarce resources to an initiative
with little or nothing to show for it.
By engaging with VSOs,
governments open themselves to criticism that they are giving away power
inappropriately, that they are working with
the wrong groups in society, that the time
taken to build trusting relationships is
costly and inefficient, and so on.
Many participants noted that our
current political culture is not conducive to
easy collaboration. We still function largely
Page 7
within structures and
question of how to recognize
● ● ●
rules based on old
success in such an enterprise.
assumptions about the
Too few organizations
Considerable support
role of government and
was
given
to the answer
look beyond the day to
the voluntary sector:
offered by Marlo Raynolds in
decision-making is nonday problems they deal his panel presentation:
transparent and often not
with to ask whether
success is indicated, at a high
consultative, government
level at least, by discernible
some of those
must maintain control
shifts in the flow of resources
since it alone is truly
problems could be
toward solving a particular
“accountable,” politics too
solved by better public problem. A wide variety of
often trumps good policy,
policy or regulatory changes
policy. As one
rules unduly limit VSOs’
could create incentives, or
advocacy work, etc.
participant put it, “we
require an allocation of
These assumptions are
build empires around
financial or other resources, in
evolving as citizens and
ways deemed socially
the casualties of a
citizen groups increasingly
beneficial.
expect to have input into
flawed system.”
Participants also gave
crucial issues, and many in
examples of successful policy
government welcome the
● ● ●
interventions that did not
challenges and rewards of
require new financial support,
sharing governance.
but
instead
improved
effectiveness,
There was broad agreement that we are in
efficiency, or outcomes by doing things
a transitional period of trying to find new
differently with the same pool of resources.
ways to work together.
And there was a clear consensus
that the benefits of government-VSO
collaboration significantly outweigh the
risks. For Canadian society as a whole, such
collaborations represent an opportunity to
reinvigorate democracy, to engage citizens
in a deeper understanding of the choices
and trade-offs facing their governments,
and to develop and fine tune policy
decisions that will ultimately lead to a
better society for all Canadians.
Recognizing Success
Having agreed that the public policy
process is dynamic, has multiple stages,
involves multiple perspectives and
negotiated compromises, and that
contributing to it requires humility and
acceptance of uncertainty, participants
turned their attention to the difficult
Drilling down, participants
suggested that indicators of success should
be developed with sensitivity to where in
the policy process a VSO is engaged. For
example, we need one set of measures to
assess whether an issue is moving up a
government’s agenda, a different set to
indicate that a potential policy solution is
more viable, and yet another to assess the
outcomes of a particular policy.
Rather than focus only on the final
implementation of a policy choice, we need
to recognize and celebrate success at each
stage as appropriate. And apart from the
impact of specific policy interventions,
many argued that engagement itself is a
success, as building trust is creating a store
of political capital that can be drawn upon
in the future. Organizational credibility,
future willingness of decision-makers to
Page 8
consult, the creation of
strong networks of
collaborators - these are
also indicators of success.
Conditions for Success
●
●
●
VSOs tend to
dramatically misjudge
the kinds and amount
of advocacy they are
able to do within
current CRA
guidelines. We have
much more latitude
than is commonly
believed.
When they began
to consider what would be
required for VSOs to
effectively contribute to
public policy, many
participants pointed out
that the first step would
be to have more VSOs
understand that
contributing to public
policy could be a wise
● ●
strategic choice in their
work. Too few
organizations look beyond the day to day
problems they confront to ask whether
some of those problems could be solved by
better public policy. As one participant put
it, “we build empires around the casualties
of a flawed system.” Participants agreed
that no matter what your field of activity, if
you aim at substantial or systemic change,
policy matters.
For those that have chosen to
engage with public policy, the first critical
need is the resources required to develop
and sustain relationships with like minded
VSOs and with government. Based on these
relationships, VSOs can see their place in a
larger network and, therefore, what and
how they can best contribute.
In addition, VSOs need to
understand how governments work, have
ready access to credible evidence and the
skills to interpret it, and well developed
communications and media skills.
None of the resources mentioned
above, however, will lead to effective public
policy engagement by VSOs without the
commitments of their
management and Boards to
stick with the work for the
long haul. Partial or
temporary involvement may
do more harm than good.
Effective collaboration
on public policy also requires
capacities from government.
One participant shared the
results of a research project
his organization had recently
completed. It revealed that
governments at all levels in
Canada self-assess their
capacity for such collaboration
●
as low. The respondents
attributed this low rating not
so much to a shortage of resources, but
rather to a shortage of capacity.
That capacity gap is unlikely to
narrow without political leadership. While
many politicians have direct experience in
the voluntary sector, too few have put
priority - and the necessary resources - to
the belief that a robust voluntary sector can
and should be engaged in the making of
better public policy for the benefit of all
Canadians.
Panel Two: Non-profits
and Public Policy: Reports
from the Field
The second panel of the symposium
was moderated by Brenda Eaton of BC
Housing Management Commission. It
featured presentations by Sean Moore
(advocacyschool.ca), Bob Wyatt (Muttart
Foundation), Kathy Brock (Queen’s
University), and Robbie Babins-Wagner
Page 9
(Calgary Counselling
Centre). Each panelist
shared their experience in
either developing,
delivering, or participating
in endeavours that aim to
improve the policy
capacity of VSOs.
Highlights
●
●
●
Because of the
enormous potential to
improve Canadian
society by engaging in
public policy, VSOs
have an obligation to
inform themselves and
each other.
By and large,
Canadian VSOs have little
knowledge of how
●
governments operate,
from basic processes to
budget and election cycles. Gaining such
understanding is essential.
●
VSOs often struggle to see their
particular policy aspirations in the larger
context of competing public priorities, in
the way that governments must understand
issues. As a result, these same VSOs often
lose patience and withdraw from the public
policy field too soon.
VSOs frequently overlook the public
service as a place to establish working
partnerships with government, and as a
result too often politicize their public policy
issues inappropriately or prematurely.
have an obligation to inform
themselves and each other.
VSOs enjoy a very high
level of public trust, but
infrequently make use of that
trust in the pursuit of their
missions.
Funders within the
voluntary sector could do
considerably more. They
could use their networks and
influence to support the
●
sector’s efforts to contribute
to public policy. They could
lend their names to causes where
appropriate, and are often in positions to
play leadership roles.
A successful collaboration around
public policy requires that the strengths of
partners are deployed strategically.
Universities can and do contribute to such
collaborations by conducting research and
analysis, and linking it with the appropriate
partners.
Consultation Session Two:
Building Policy Capacity
Governments themselves are
evolving such that there will be increasing
need for contributions to public policy from
a robust and well informed civil society.
The second set of conversations
among participants focused on what could
most usefully be done to improve the policy
capacity of Canada’s voluntary sector.
VSOs tend to dramatically misjudge
the kinds and amount of advocacy they are
able to do within current CRA guidelines.
We have much more latitude than is
commonly believed. Because of the
enormous potential to improve Canadian
society by engaging in public policy, VSOs
Leveraging Assets
Page
10
Canada’s VSOs enjoy considerable
social capital, are characterized by a culture
of innovation and commitment to the public
good, and collectively possess deep
knowledge of a wide range of public
problems and potential solutions.
Participants turned their attention to how
best to leverage these assets in the service
of contributing to public policy. An easy
consensus emerged around several
concrete proposals for action.
The first step is to communicate
broadly the legitimacy and potential
positive impacts of contributing to public
policy. VSOs, from the board level through
management to front line staff, need
models and examples of success in order to
better understand the why and how of
public policy capacity. Many participants
suggested that case studies, well articulated
and widely distributed, would be an
obvious way forward. The case studies
should foreground that successful policy
advocacy involves multiple partners
playing multiple roles, and that therefore
many different types of organizations can
make meaningful contributions.
An important second step would be
to create an inventory of programs and
supports that are available to VSOs, from
university-based programs to training
institutes to granting programs. The
inventory would not only help VSOs access
the supports currently available, but would
also help identify gaps that leading
organizations could begin to address.
A platform by which potential
partners could be readily identified would
be very valuable. In many cases, the
linkages that could be most beneficial (e.g.,
between a service delivery organization
and a think tank) aren’t likely to be made in
the normal course of business.
Appropriate Training
Participants suggested that an
appropriate pedagogy for training in policy
capacity would include:
learning while doing;
“just in time” supports;
Page
11
mentorship from a range of experts
(e.g., private sector, public service,
politicians, academe); and
a focus on case studies.
In terms of content, participants
agreed that the following would be
essential:
how governments operate;
how to gather and understand evidence;
how to develop and sustain networks;
and
how to effectively communicate.
On this last point, several
participants emphasized that
communication needs to be differentiated
from advocacy, as so much of effective
policy capacity revolves around
relationship building.
Participants suggested that the
format of training should recognize the
time demands of VSOs. They suggested
flexible models and the use of multiple
media, though they also noted that more
time intensive and face-to-face approaches
should also be available. Regardless of the
modality, the content of training should be
freely and widely available.
Alumni networks should be
sustained in order to extend the return on
investments in policy capacity building.
Ideally, a “space” for low-risk
conversations between VSOs and
government partners could be a great
benefit.
Finally, participants noted that all of
the above needs to be supported by funders
if it is to happen at all.
2. Participants agreed that a range of
training opportunities should be
developed for VSOs who want to
improve their policy capacity, and
that this training should be
delivered in as flexible a manner as
possible. On-line formats would be
highly valued.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
There is a network of dozens of
individuals and organizations from across
Canada with:
a strong belief, rooted in evidence and
experience, that VSOs can and do make
important contributions to public policy
in Canada, for the betterment of all
Canadians;
a strong interest in further developing
the policy capacity of VSOs;
a clear sense of priorities for next steps.
Next steps following the symposium should
be:
1. the production and wide
dissemination of a number of case
studies that detail instances of VSOs
playing important roles in public
policy development. The purposes
of the case studies should be
twofold. First, they would
demonstrate how policy capacity is
strategically important for many
VSOs. Second, they would provide
insight regarding how policy
capacity can be developed and
deployed. Symposium participants
are encouraged to write-up cases
they are aware of. Appendix C lists
the examples of VSO contributions
to public policy that symposium
participants shared with organizers
prior to the event. Max Bell
Foundation welcomes
recommendations from symposium
participants and others regarding
potential case studies and potential
authors.
Page
12
3. Mentorship was identified as an
important part of building policy
capacity among VSOs. A useful
starting point would be to develop
an inventory of individuals who
could act as mentors and who would
be willing to provide some
reasonable number of hours of time
– by telephone or in person – to
VSOs engaged in contributing to
public policy.
Actions Underway
Max Bell Foundation, in partnership
with a number of other funders, is
commissioning at least five case studies as
described in the recommendations above.
We expect them to be complete in the fall of
2011. They will be disseminated broadly,
including to all symposium participants.
Gordon Floyd
Children's Mental Health Ontario
APPENDIX A: Participants
Stephen Gauk
Alberta Children and Youth Services
Robbie Babins-Wagner
Calgary Counselling Centre
Michelle Gauthier
Imagine Canada
Kathy Brock
Queen’s University
Roger Gibbins
Canada West Foundation
Tim Brodhead
McConnell Foundation
Al Hatton
United Way of Canada – Centraide Canada
Hon. Bert Brown
Senate of Canada
Laird Hunter
Muttart Foundation
Alice Brown
Olds College
Veronica Lacey
The Learning Partnership
Deb Bryant
United Way of the Lower Mainland
Joelle Lewis
Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada
Cindy Chiasson
Environmental Law Centre
Evert Lindquist
University of Victoria
Catherine Clement
Vancouver Foundation
Rick Lussier
The Winnipeg Foundation
Nathalie Cooke
McGill University
Michael McKnight
United Way of the Lower Mainland
Brian Lee Crowley
Macdonald-Laurier Institute
David J. Mitchell
Public Policy Forum
Brenda Eaton
BC Housing Management Commission
Sean Moore
www.advocacyschool.org
Peter Elson
Mount Royal University
Liz Mulholland
Mulholland Consulting
David Elton
Max Bell Foundation
Olivia Nuamah
Atkinson Charitable Foundation
Al Etmanski
PLAN Institute
Page
13
Allan Northcott
Max Bell Foundation
APPENDIX B: Full text of
Keynote Address
Katrina Milaney
Calgary Homeless Foundation
Strengthening Voluntary
Sector Organizations’
Contributions to Public
Policy
Hilary Pearson
Philanthropic Foundations Canada
Ann Peters
Maytree
Dr. David K. Elton
Marlo Raynolds
Pembina Institute
I’d like to welcome you to this
discussion on strengthening the
contributions of voluntary sector
organizations to public policy. My name is
David Elton. I am the President of Max Bell
Foundation, and we are pleased to be your
hosts for the next two days.
Nancy Reynolds
Alberta Centre for Child, Family and
Community Research
Christopher Smith
Muttart Foundation
This audience consists of many
individuals with a great deal of personal
experience in teaching, mentoring, and
making public policy. A broad range of
voluntary sector organizations are
represented - from funders to service
providers to think tanks. Among us are also
people with a wide range of experiences
and expertise in government. Our group
includes folks with decades of experience in
public service from policy analysts and
advisors to deputy ministers.
James Stauch
Walter & Duncan Gordon Foundation
Ralph Strother
Max Bell Foundation
John Stapleton
Open Policy Ontario
Shelley Uytterhagen
Carthy Foundation
We also have professors from a
number of Canada’s leading universities
who have been doing research and
educating literally hundreds of people each
year about how best to contribute to public
policy decision making.
Katherine van Kooy
Calgary Chamber of Voluntary
Organizations
Peter Warrian
Lupina Foundation
In sum, I think we have the right mix
of people with the knowledge, expertise
and experience needed to identify what it is
we are doing well with regards to
developing good public policy, and what it
is we can do over the next few years to
Cynthia Wild
YWCA of Calgary
Bob Wyatt
Muttart Foundation
Page
14
improve the ways voluntary organizations
make effective contributions to improving
Canadian society.
I am also pleased to note that the
room we are meeting in today is named
after Jim Hume, a gentleman that many of
us have worked with over the years in
search of good public policy. Like many of
you, I had the privilege of working with Jim
for several decades on a broad range of
public policy issues. I know those of you
that have worked with Jim will agree that
his creativity and reasoned practicality will
be missed throughout our discussions over
the next two days.
I think it is also most fitting to note
that we are meeting in the Kahanoff
building, which is named after a Foundation
that has contributed significantly to the
creation, implementation and evaluation of
good public policy throughout Canada for
over three decades.
Our meetings this week are timely
because the current federal election
campaign reminds us not only of just how
important good public policy is to the
quality of life of Canadians, but also of the
near unending number of policy issues that
face Canadians.
Many of you in this room have been
thinking about and delivering programs to
improve voluntary sector contributions to
public policy for decades. Indeed, a number
of you were very active in the Voluntary
Sector initiative from 2000 to 2005 that
focused on the same set of issues that we
are looking at today. And, a number of you
were present at the First annual National
Forum on the Third Sector and Public
Policy at Queen’s University in 2000 that
was made possible in part by a grant from
the Kahanoff Foundation.
Page
15
The keynote speaker at that Queen’s
University conference in 2000 was Member
of Parliament Peter Milliken. He talked
about the then Liberal Government’s recent
establishment of the Voluntary Sector
Initiative. Near the end of his presentation,
Peter Milliken made the following
comment:
Our goal . . . is that some day in the
not too distant future we will look around
and realize that involving the voluntary
sector in policy dialogue is so entrenched
that no one thinks twice about it. Program
managers will involve the voluntary sector in
design and implementation as a matter of
course, and dialogue will be the accepted
way of doing business in all departments.
The government knows that all three sectors
(public, private and voluntary) play equally
vital roles in enhancing the quality of life of
Canadians . . . and it is only by the three
joining forces that we can truly build a
stronger, healthier society.
We are now living in the “not too
distant future” that Peter Milliken was
referring to. While the participants at this
symposium collectively can identify dozens
of instances where third sector
organizations have played pivotal roles in
shaping a wide range of public policies over
the past decade, I would be surprised if any
of us would argue that the involvement of
the voluntary sector in policy dialogue is so
entrenched that no one thinks twice about
it.
Neil Cochrane from the Charities
Directorate of Canada Revenue Agency had
planned to be with us today, but he called
on Monday and said he wouldn’t be able to
make the symposium. He did, however,
refer us to the most recent annual report on
the public service of Canada to the Prime
Minister written by Wayne Wouters, Clerk
of the Privy Council and Secretary to the
Cabinet, which was just released publicly
within the past few days. Neil suggested we
take a look at the section in that report
dealing with Policy, and since the report
directly addresses the subject matter of this
symposium I’d like to quote from it directly:
Excellence in policy means bringing
evidence and analysis to bear in the
development of advice to government. Mere
information—from whatever source—is no
substitute for knowledge and analytical
rigour.
Policy excellence is also about
collaboration. Because issues today are so
complex and interdependent, we have to get
better at working horizontally, with
colleagues in other organizations and
outside the boundaries of the Public Service.
Strengthened engagement with other
levels of government, academia, think tanks,
non-governmental organizations and
citizens will help improve the quality of our
advice and lead to better results for
Canadians.
I think that you’ll agree that this
report by the Clerk of the Privy Council is
indeed encouraging, because it reinforces
the fact that at the highest levels of the
public service there is a continuing
perceived need to include, and even seek
out participation by voluntary sector
organizations to improve public policy. Just
how that should take place is the critical
question we will be addressing over the
next two days.
As we meet here this morning we
should not lose sight of the fact that many
Canadians are every bit as much focused
upon the upcoming NHL playoff season as
they are on the federal election. And, many
Canadians have been listening to, if not
participating in the current debate about
head injuries and their life long impacts on
Page
16
NHL players. But perhaps more important,
from a public policy perspective, is the
impacts that head injuries have on young
people playing amateur hockey. This issue,
and the debate over what to do about it,
reminds us that it isn’t only government
rules and regulations that impact our
quality of life.
Prime Minister Harper’s comment a
few weeks ago that the NHL and amateur
hockey associations should do something to
change the rules about body checking to
reduce head injuries reminds all of us that
public policy is more than the rules,
regulations and practices of government. It
is also about all the rules, regulations, and
practices of many voluntary and
professional organizations that impact the
quality of life of Canadians.
This is why we included in our
welcoming letter to you the suggestion that
we broaden our definition of public policy
to include non-government entities, and
define policy capacity as:
The ability to develop and
communicate useful advice on public issues
we care about to governments, the media,
institutions, corporations, and other
interests in ways that have a reasonable
chance of affecting the course of their
decisions. This includes advocacy capacity,
or the ability to persuade governments to
adopt the policies one is promoting.
I will have more to say about this
definition in a few moments, but first let me
turn to our objectives for this symposium.
We have three key objectives in
mind for the next two days:
The first objective is to deepen our
shared understanding of the roles that
voluntary sector organizations have played,
and could play, in the development of
public policy in Canada.
The second objective is to identify
the most effective ways to help improve the
capacity of voluntary sector organizations
to inform public policy in Canada.
The third objective is to explore
possible collaborative efforts -- both among
voluntary sector organizations and with
governments -- that will build more
capacity in voluntary sector organizations
to effectively engage in the public policy
process.
The panel presentations today and
tomorrow are primarily intended to
stimulate conversation. The majority of the
two days will be spent in small hosted
groups focused on particular questions
related to the objectives just mentioned,
and in networking between sessions and
during our dinner, breakfast and lunch
breaks.
At two key points in the program -tomorrow morning, and again near the
close of the symposium tomorrow
afternoon -- you will hear from Tim
Brodhead, who has kindly agreed to be the
symposium rapporteur. Tim is probably
well known to almost everyone here today,
but for those of you that haven’t had the
privilege of working with Tim, he will be
more formally introduced tomorrow
morning.
As background reading, we
recommended that you take a look at the
most recent issue of The Philanthropist,
which fortuitously for us focuses upon the
subject matter of this symposium. We are
fortunate to have a number of the authors
of the articles in this special issue with us,
and we are looking forward to their
contributions to our deliberations.
While I found all of the articles in
The Philanthropist relevant to our
discussions over the next two days, three in
Page
17
particular caught my attention. The first
was the article by Elizabeth Mulholland.
She reminds us that how any of us go about
developing public policy positions is often
just as important as the content of our
contributions. She also provided us with a
very useful definition of good public policy
when she said, and I quote:
Good policy consists of sound fiscal,
tax, regulatory, programmatic, and other
policy advice that governments can feasibly
implement without unwarranted political
risk and with reasonable confidence that it
may yield the desired end goal.
Elizabeth Mulholland’s subsequent
discussion of what we need to think about
when we engage in public policy is, not
surprisingly, very similar to the advice that
the faculty of the Max Bell Public Policy
Institute has been imparting to participants
at each and every session I have attended
over the past three years.
The second article that caught my
attention was the article by Lasby and
Vodarek, which was based upon Imagine
Canada’s Sector Monitor survey conducted
among Canadian charities in October and
November, 2010. They point out that most
public policy activities undertaken by
charities involve provincial and municipal
governments to a greater extent than they
involve the federal government.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as
though attention was paid to the large
number of non-governmental agencies and
organizations that are also involved in
public policy, such as school boards, and
national organizations that regulate health
care service, sport, local community
services, etc. As a result, the analysis
doesn’t take account of the time and energy
voluntary organizations devote to changing
the rules and practices of these
organizations in order to improve the
quality of life of Canadians. This is where
I’d like to briefly return to the suggestion
that non government entities be included in
our broad definition of public policy. As a
concrete example, I will describe a grant
that Max Bell Foundation made a few years
ago.
There has been an on going debate
for some time among the parents of young
hockey players and within the
organizations that regulate hockey about
the relative merits of learning to body
check at an early age. Some argue that
learning to body check at age 8 helps insure
that kids will be better able to protect
themselves against serious injury when
they are older. Others argue that body
checking at age 8 simply increases the
number of serious head injuries, including
concussion, to 8 and 9 year olds, and does
not reduce the number of injuries among
older hockey players.
In 2006, Max Bell Foundation was
approached by a group of sport medicine
researchers at the University of Calgary and
asked to fund a research project that could
result in a reduction of serious injuries to
young hockey players throughout Canada.
What they wanted to do was confirm or
reject the hypothesis that body checking in
Pee Wee hockey exposes children to
unnecessary risk and in some cases results
in significant injury such as concussion,
head and neck trauma, and other fractures.
The Directors of Max Bell Foundation
decided to fund this study on the grounds
that it was a significant public policy issue
because it had the potential to identify a
rule change that might reduce injuries to a
large number of young people throughout
Canada.
The researchers tested their
hypothesis by studying injury rates among
8 and 9 year old kids playing organized
Page
18
hockey. The two populations selected for
this study were Pee Wee players in Alberta,
where body checking is allowed, and Pee
Wee players in Quebec – where body
checking is not allowed. Not surprisingly,
they found that serious injuries, including
head injuries, were more frequent in
Alberta than Quebec. More importantly,
they also found that serious injury rates in
the next age group – kids that are 11 and 12
and playing in the Bantam league - were not
appreciably different in the two provinces.
The study therefore concluded that
learning to check in Pee Wee hockey does
not protect kids from injury in Bantam
hockey, but does substantially increase the
number of serious injuries experienced by
Pee Wee hockey players.
I mention this particular study to
point out that the entity that regulates body
checking in hockey is not an elected
government. It is Hockey Canada, a non
government organization that establishes
rules and regulations that effect the health
of a large group of Canadian citizens. This
is but one example of de facto public policy
being made by non government entities in
our society. It is the reason we think
consideration should be given to including
organizations such as Hockey Canada under
the umbrella of entities involved in making
public policy. And, as the researchers that
produced the body checking report can
attest, it is often every bit as difficult to get
an organization like Hockey Canada to
implement change, and requires the same
kind of care and attention and skill set that
Elizabeth Mulholland talks about in her
article.
The third article in The
Philanthropist that caught my attention was
a debate between Bob Wyatt and Don
Bourgeois. I was struck by Don’s challenge
for someone to identify a dozen major
public policies that have been led by the
voluntary sector. I found that challenge
mystifying.
My understanding of how public
policy is made, implemented, and assessed
is that it is unusual when one person, entity
or sector can take most of the credit. Public
policy by its very nature tends to involve a
multitude of actors, and tends to result in
many compromises which require many,
and sometimes all of the participants to
substitute the possible for the ideal.
While I’m not sure what Don
Bourgeois had in mind regarding what it
takes to successfully lead a significant
change in public policy, I can without
equivocation say that I am personally
aware of dozens of “major” public policies
that were significantly shaped and
influenced by voluntary sector
contributions to government decision
making. I have also had the privilege of
reading the dozens of examples of the
creation, implementation and monitoring of
major public policies mentioned by those in
this room in response to our presymposium questionnaire, which provide
dozens of additional concrete examples.
Rather than simply assert that
voluntary sector organizations are active in
public policy, I’d like to briefly mention a
few examples that I think could be turned
into case studies that would substantiate
that voluntary organizations have and do
play a significant role in public policy.
First on my list is one of the most
significant economic policy developments
of the past century - the free trade
agreement between Canada and the United
States. Numerous Canadian think tanks
played a very important role in all aspects
of this policy decision – and I would include
the work done by the Canada West
Foundation, the C.D. Howe Institute, the
Fraser Institute, and the Council of
Page
19
Canadians as examples of the contributions
non profits made to this major public
policy.
The second example is also a very
significant economic decision - the decision
to reduce deficit spending in the early
1990’s by provincial and federal
governments. Here again think tanks
across Canada and organizations such as
the Canadian Taxpayers Association were
involved in identifying the problem,
providing meaningful options, stimulating
action, and monitoring progress.
My third example would be that of
Senate election legislation in Alberta and
the role that Canada West Foundation and
the Triple E Senate Committee played in
encouraging the Alberta Government to
hold three Senate nominee elections which
has resulted in the appointment of 2 elected
Senators, one of whom is among us today –
Senator Bert Brown. And if any of you
doubt whether this initiative is still alive
and well, I invite you raise the matter with
Senator Brown.
The fourth example is the creation of
citizen assemblies in British Columbia and
Ontario within the past decade, and the
work the Canada West Foundation and
other NGOs did in establishing a viable
model for these initiatives.
The fifth example is that of the
changes made recently to Alberta’s
lobbying legislation directly as a result of
the voluntary sector’s interventions, many
of which took place after the legislation had
actually been introduced to the Alberta
legislature.
The sixth example is the changes
that have and are taking place related to
Ontario’s early childhood education
programs, and the role organizations such
as the Atkinson Foundation played in
helping shape these changes.
The seventh example is the creation
of registered disability savings plans, and
the role the Planned Lifetime Advocacy
Network played in encouraging the
creation of this public policy. Al Etmanski,
one of the driving forces behind this policy
development, is also here today.
The eighth example is the dramatic
changes in land management that have
taken place in the Great Bear Rainforest
area on the coast of British Columbia, and
the plethora of environment groups and
Aboriginal communities that clearly led
these changes.
I could go on and on, as could many
of you, to identify many more than a dozen
examples to meet Don Bourgeois’ challenge.
And I imagine that many of you have also
come up with a number of your own
specific examples while I have been
enumerating my list - and that you feel they
are every bit as good or better than the
examples I have just given.
I am hopeful that one of the things
that will emerge from our conversations
over the next few days is a clear indication
about the extent to which the development
of case studies should be encouraged that
focus on the role of voluntary sector
organizations contributions to public
policy. I am familiar with two such cases,
produced by the University of Waterloo
Institute for Social Innovation and
Resilience regarding the Great Bear
Rainforest and Registered Disability
Savings Plans. I am sure there are others
and we would appreciate learning of them
and encourage you to share them with
either Allan or myself.
In addition to the two case studies
just mentioned, the University of Waterloo
Page
20
Institute for Social Innovation and
Resilience has also produced a Primer on
Social Innovation Generation Case Writing
that provides a framework for the writing
of case studies. This work provides a good
primer for those interested in writing or
funding the writing of additional case
studies.
While it is simultaneously both
heartwarming and discouraging to share
war stories about successful, unsuccessful
and ongoing endeavors to improve public
policy, our primary objective over the next
two days is to talk about ways and means to
learn from one another’s experiences, both
successful and unsuccessful, and discuss
ways to strengthen the capacities of
voluntary sector organizations to engage in
a more effective way in the public policy
process.
From our initial scan of the work
that many of you in this room are doing, we
are more than aware that there are many
participants here today that are committed
to, and heavily involved in, providing public
policy education for voluntary sector
organizations.
Over the next two days you will hear
about a wide range of such initiatives, and
I’d like to kick off this exchange by telling
you about Max Bell Foundation’s
endeavors.
For Max Bell Foundation, public
policy has been a high priority for well over
a decade. More than 200 of the 250 grants
we have made over the past 14 years have
supported research and demonstration
projects that have sought to inform public
policy. It is also why, when we learned
about Maytree Foundation’s public policy
training institute in 2005, we asked Allan
Northcott to audit the course. His very
positive assessment of the Maytree course
led us to initiate a similar course here in
Alberta three years ago. And in the past
year we have encouraged the United Way of
the Lower Mainland to initiate a similar
course in BC this year.
To date we have had in excess of 50
participants in our public policy training
institute and the feedback from the
participants has been unanimously
positive. Participants have told us that it is
one of the most relevant and best
professional development experiences they
have had.
We have three of the participants in
that course with us today: Robbie Babbins
Wagner, who you will hear from tomorrow;
Cynthia Wild; and Cindy Chiasson. We also
have four of the faculty with us: Brenda
Eaton, Bob Wyatt, Nancy Reynolds and
Roger Gibbins – two of whom you will hear
from tomorrow and one of whom is a table
host. And we are hopeful that the lead
faculty member, Jim Dinning, will join us
tomorrow.
Given that probably over 60% of the
people in this room are not familiar with
the Maytree/Max Bell/United Way
programs, I’d like to quickly outline the
program. There will be someone at each of
the discussion tables that knows the
program in detail. I will leave it to them to
fill in the details should anyone want
further information.
In each of the past three years, Max
Bell has invited individuals working in
charities that are either currently engaged,
or about to become engaged in public
policy work, to apply for acceptance into
the public policy institute program.
The program has three objectives.
The first is to enhance participants'
understanding of how federal, provincial
and municipal governments make policy
decisions, so that they can participate more
effectively in the public policy process.
The second objective is to provide
participants with training in how to
develop practical and workable policy
alternatives through both formal and
informal learning formats that include
lectures, case studies, readings, panel
discussions, group work, and one on one
discussions with the faculty.
The third objective is to have each
participant make significant progress on
the development of a public policy issue
that would improve their organization’s
ability to accomplish its objectives.
One of the central aspects of the
program is a five person faculty that
possesses among them as good a set of
credentials regarding government and
voluntary sector organization experience as
one could ask for. Jim Dinning has been the
lead faculty for all five years. His extensive
experience as a senior public servant, a
cabinet minister, a corporate executive, and
the chair of a think tank, and his keen
interest in sharing these experiences with
Institute participants, are undoubtedly two
of the primary reasons people take the
program.
The 12-day program runs over a six
month period from October through April.
It consists of 6 modules of 2 days, each led
by a public policy expert. In addition, each
of the 25 participants receives one-on-one
coaching/mentoring during the program to
provide personalized advice and support to
develop a policy-ready position on an issue
of their choice by program end.
The sessions alternate between
Calgary and Edmonton. Travel and
accommodation bursaries are provided to
all participants. Each admitted participant
is required to pay a $500 materials fee and
Page
21
Max Bell Foundation, with financial support
from two other Alberta Foundations, pays
the remaining $4,000 per participant that it
costs to run the program.
While we think the Max Bell Public
Policy Institute is a good initiative, we are
always looking for ways to improve, and
would welcome any suggestions any of you
might have. We are also more than aware
that there are many other programs and
initiatives that equal or even surpass the
initiative Max Bell has taken with regards
to building the capacity of voluntary sector
organizations to effectively contribute to
public policy developments. Many of
Canada’s leading universities have been
involved in providing courses which train
people to effectively participate in public
policy over the past several decades, and
we are looking forward to conversing with
the academics about what we can learn
from one another’s program delivery
experiences.
I have also been most impressed
with the work Sean Moore has done in
developing the Advocacy School, and look
forward to hearing from him tomorrow.
In a few minutes you will hear from
Allan Northcott, who will review with you
some of the information we obtained from
you in the pre-symposium questionnaire.
While I don’t want to encroach unduly on
his report, I do think it important to
mention that a number of participants came
to this conference hoping to hear how the
public policy definition used by Elizabeth
Mulholland and quoted by me a few
minutes ago squares with the CRA
Directorate on advocacy. While this subject
isn’t the central focus of our conversations
over the next few days, I am hopeful that
this matter will be taken into consideration
during our conversations.
Page
22
I’d like to close my remarks by once
again thanking all of you for being here and
simply saying that I personally look
forward to discussing with you
opportunities to improve the policy
capacity of voluntary sector organizations.
APPENDIX C: Examples of
VSO contributions to
public policy development
Prior to the symposium, participants
were asked to identify examples of
contributions to public policy development
made by voluntary sector organizations.
Some responded with particular initiatives,
some by naming an organization, and some
with a combination of each.
ACORN - The Payday Loan Act
Addiction services
Alberta Mentoring Partnership
Alberta Nonprofit/Voluntary Sector
Initiative
ALLIES - tri-sectoral collaboration on
immigrant employment
BC Government-Non Profit Initiative
Blue Ribbon Panel on Grants and
Contributions
Body checking in Pee Wee hockey
Calgary Chamber of Voluntary
Organizations – multiple cases
Calgary Homeless Foundation homelessness in new Alberta Health Act
Canada West Foundation – Red Ink
Series
Canada –US Free Trade
Canada West Foundation – National
Energy Strategy
Canadian Caregiver Coalition Supportive policies to support informal
care-givers
Canadian Centre for Disability Studies –
multiple cases
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
– multiple cases
Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society
– multiple cases
Chantier de l’economie sociale - support
for homecare/ childcare
Child and youth mental health in
Ontario
Community Living Manitoba – multiple
cases
Daily Bread Food Bank – Deprivation
index in Poverty Reduction Strategy
Early Childhood Development
Electoral reform
Environmental Defense – multiple cases
Environmental Law Centre – multiple
cases
ETC Group - work on biodiversity,
climate change, food security, etc.
Food Matters Manitoba – multiple cases
Frontier Centre for Public Policy –
multiple cases
Global Road Safety Initiative
Great Bear Rainforest
Greenbelt legislation
HomeFront – Formerly the Calgary
Justice Working Project
IMAGINE Canada - campaign in support
of volunteering and donating
IMAGINE Canada - National
Engagement Strategy
Page
23
IMAGINE Canada - National Standards
Program
IMAGINE Canada - response to Bill C470
Interprovincial trade agreements
John Howard Society – multiple cases
Justice for Children and Youth - Safe
Schools Act
Manitoba Eco-Network – multiple cases
Maytree – multiple cases
Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords
Muttart Foundation – Provincial
Lobbyist Act
National Public Policy Committee of the
Social Economy Research Hub
Ontario Child Benefit
Ontario Literacy Coalition – multiple
cases
Ontario Non-profit Network – multiple
cases
Ontario Poverty Reduction Strategy
Pembina - work on climate change and
other cases
Philanthropic Foundations Canada Social finance and mission-related
investing
PLAN – RDSP
Provincial and national deficit and debt
reduction
Reforms to local food systems
Regulation of VLTs
Right To Play - Sport for Development
and Peace
Senate elections
SiG – Social Finance
Social Assistance Review Scope and
Terms of Reference
Social Finance Task Force
Sport Matters Group – multiple cases
St. Christopher’s House – multiple cases
Standing Committee on Finance prebudget consultation
Sustainable Prosperity - work on
climate change and the tax system
Tamarack/Caledon - Vibrant
Communities program to combat
poverty
Tax policy on gifts of equities to private
foundations
The Committee for a Triple E Senate
The Federal Government - Voluntary
Sector Initiative
The Learning Partnership - Welcome to
Kindergarten program
The Learning Partnership - Succession
Planning for Principals and VicePrincipals
Toronto City Summit Alliance - Working
Income Tax Credit
Toronto Disaster Relief Committee City of Toronto’s cooling policy for the
homeless
Page
24
United Way of the Lower Mainland –
multiple cases
United Way Toronto - Virtual Poverty
Report
University of Victoria – Centre for
Nonprofit Management
Vancouver Foundation – Streethome
Foundation
Vibrant Communities Calgary – Living
Wage Initiative
Voluntary Sector Initiative
Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation
- Public policy fellowship programs
Water resource allocations
The Wellesley Institute – affordable
housing
Working Income Tax Benefit
Women in Agriculture –Canadian Wheat
Board treatment of women as equal
shareholders
Women Moving Forward – Poverty
reduction
Yukon Conservation Society – multiple
cases