Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to CharityVillage Connects – a series that highlights topics vital to the nonprofit sector in Canada. CharityVillage is a resource to over 170,000 charitable and nonprofit organizations in Canada. This series, hosted by President Mary Barroll, will provide in-depth conversations with experts in the nonprofit sector. We’ll examine diversity, equity and inclusion, innovations in fundraising, the gap in female representation in leadership and many other subjects crucial to the growth and development of charities throughout Canada.
The 2025 Federal Budget: What Nonprofits Need to Know to Navigate 2026
Mary Barroll: Hi, I’m Mary Barroll. In this episode of CharityVillage Connects, we're turning our focus to what Prime Minister Carney’s first federal budget means for the Canadian nonprofit sector. But first, here’s a word from our podcast partner.
Sponsor Message: Today’s podcast is brought to you by WUSC. For more than 50 years, WUSC has been working alongside communities around the world to drive positive education and economic outcomes for young people.
Now, Canadians have the chance to join us by volunteering internationally. As a WUSC volunteer, you’ll collaborate with local organizations, share your experience, and help co-create initiatives that expand economic opportunities.
Explore volunteer roles today at volunteer dot W-U-S-C dot C-A.
SFX: Buzzing sound
Mary Barroll: Welcome to CharityVillage Connects. I’m your host Mary Barroll.
SFX: Hummingbird flying and tone
That’s the sound of a Hummingbird pollinating our world and making it a better place.
Music
The Hummingbird is CharityVillage’s logo because we strive – like the industrious Hummingbird – to make connections across the nonprofit sector and help make positive change.
We’ll offer insight that will help you make sense of your life as a nonprofit professional, make connections to help navigate challenges and support your organization to deliver on its mission.
Mary Barroll: In this episode of CharityVillage Connects, we do a deep dive into the first Federal Budget of the Carney government and explore its impacts on the Canadian nonprofit sector, as Canada continues to navigate economic and security challenges, brought on by ongoing threats of an all-out trade war, threats to Canada’s national security, and even threats to our sovereignty – all of which are truly unprecedented in our lifetimes and are emerging from a previously unthinkable source – our closest trading partner and ally. What does the budget signal for Canadian nonprofits in 2026 and beyond?
News clip Defence, infrastructure top Carney's first budget, CTV National News, Nov. 4, 2025
“Tonight, breaking down a ballooning deficit in the Prime Minister's first budget, digging into spending priorities. One of the biggest spends is 81.8 billion over 5 years on national defense. The government has also earmarked 51 billion over the next decade for new infrastructure projects in something called the Build Communities Strong Fund. And the Build Canada Homes program is getting 13 billion over 5 years, including 2.8 billion just for Indigenous housing.”
Mary Barroll: Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first federal budget was tabled in November 2025 and in this episode of CharityVillage Connects, our guests help us unravel what the budget means for you and your organization, as well as for Canada’s nonprofit sector as a whole, at this critical juncture for Canada.
Chris Holz:This is a hinge moment for Canada. It's a hinge moment in the context of U.S. tariffs, but it's not a unique thing just for Canada.
Andrew Chunilall: The narrative here is a Canada strong budget, a deep investment in major projects and infrastructure across the country. Now the question being how does this impact the nonprofit sector.
Jesse Clarke: I did a word search, and it was interesting to note that where the word nonprofit showed up twice, both times in relation to housing, there weren't any mentions of the word charity.
Paul Farran: The budget represents a step back from Canada's global engagement, at a moment when needs are only getting higher, probably higher than at any point in recent history.
Aline Nizigama: There was really a commitment to advance gender equity and supporting women, girls and 2SLGBTQIA+ people across Canada, with what was tabled as stable long-term funding. SFX: sound of coin dropping and spinning.
Mary Barroll: Prime Minister Mark Carney’s first federal budget was released in a tense economic climate, and those pressures have continued well into the New Year. Canada faces mounting global instability, ongoing impacts from U.S. tariffs, persistent inflationary pressures, and a shifting labour market. Meanwhile, the nonprofit sector continues to grapple with declining donations and an increased demand for frontline social services, reaching crisis levels, in some areas. The stakes really couldn’t be any higher, for the country and the nonprofit sector. So, what does this budget hold for the thousands of charities and nonprofit organizations across the country, carrying Canada’s social burden? In this climate of economic challenges, what spending priorities were protected, what areas were cut, and what new opportunities, if any, exist? Finally, what is the overarching vision guiding this government's budget decisions and how can nonprofits navigate a path forward to continue their mission driven work?
Andrew Chunilall is CEO of Community Foundations Canada. He sees the tough economic environment that all Canadians are facing as an important frame of reference for understanding both the budget’s overall priorities and its potential impact on the nonprofit sector. In Andrew Chunillal’s reading of the budget, it seems obvious that nonprofits and charities will have to make sacrifices.
Andrew Chunilall: I think the context is really important. There's a lot of tension and stress on the Canadian economy right now. But even before we were faced with tariffs and that Canada had a big productivity issue and among G20 countries it was often talked about that Canada is lagging and falling behind, in terms of that productivity. The narrative here is a Canada strong budget, a deep investment in major projects and infrastructure across the country. And this really is an attempt to bring investment to critical infrastructure that will create jobs and strengthen the Canadian economy, and to some extent diversify our economy with trading partners, going beyond the United States.
Now the question being how does this impact the nonprofit sector? Well, context is also important here, as well. We know that young people are really struggling right now in the economy. We know the older people are struggling right now. A lot of our systems are deeply stressed. There has been targeted funding in this budget, to particular areas around music funds or school food programs, funding specifically gender and women equality, things like that. And those are really important to invest in. Where we see the gaps is within the capacity building of organizations that are delivering on the ground, across the country. And as needs are going up, the capacity isn't matching. And so, this continues to be a struggle for our sector and there really is no provisions in the budget for that. And as we know, the Prime Minister was preparing us to make sacrifices and certainly it looks like, in many ways, we are going to have to make some sacrifices, particularly in our sector. SFX: Sound of coin dropping
Mary Barroll: Christopher Holz, Principal of Campbell Strategies and Government Relations Advisor for CapitalW, has over 20 years of experience providing counsel to all three levels of government. He agrees with Andrew Chunilall that this budget all comes down to the economy. Echoing a famous political catchphrase "it's the economy, stupid" is basically how Chris Holz sums up the political message embedded in this budget.
Chris Holz: Whether it's tax measures, whether it's infrastructure measures, whether it's a whole series of things. This budget, if there's a theme for it, it's the economy, stupid. That's an old Bill Clinton reference. But it absolutely is about the economy. It's about productivity. It's about building now and fast. It's about significant investment in Canada, diversifying our economy away from, really, one partner that is not reliable. It's a reality that the whole world is dealing with this. But you know who's really dealing with this? We are, because we are quite dependent from an economic perspective. So, the number one message is that this budget and this government is focused on building and growing the economy. That doesn't mean that there isn't a role for social service agencies or charities and nonprofits. There absolutely is a role. But without the investment in the economy and productivity, especially diversifying markets, etc., we cannot pay for all the things that we have and all the social programming that we have. I think that we can do that while still living up to our values and ensuring that charities and nonprofits are able to deliver the services that are needed. Of course, that's the case. That's been the case all along. But the flavour is different. And we need to be mindful of the change that is clearly communicated.
Mary Barroll: Jesse Clarke, CEO of J.N. Clarke Consulting and a government funding expert, also sees a change on the horizon for nonprofits and charities who rely on government funding. While she’s not quite ready to use the word “austerity”, she is concerned about the funding cuts that nonprofits will have to grapple with. And, as she explains, those cuts may very well trickle down from the federal to the provincial level via transfer payments to provinces, meaning organizations who rely on provincial funding could be impacted as well.
Jesse Clarke: I do think it reflects overall change, in terms of the issues that primarily concern the nonprofit sector. That being said, as much as it's not an austerity budget, we are facing cuts in many areas. Programs are being wiped out or eliminated. There is still funding available.
I think one thing that's really important for all of us to note as we're looking at this budget. They're calling this basically a capital framework budget, right? Which means they're really prioritizing infrastructure and capital spending. Which is a significant departure from previous budgets. And it means that the assumption is that they're going to keep other kinds of spending, operational spending, maintain current levels, but I think also effectively, they're kind of deprioritized. And I think that includes most spending on social services, including most of the grants and contributions that charities and nonprofits benefit from.
Everyone really needs to be aware that the actual funding that goes from the federal government to charities and nonprofits; it flows in two major streams. One is that there is transfer payments that flow to the provinces, and the provinces then turn around and give that money, sometimes, to nonprofit and charitable partners to implement programming.
The other way that many charities and nonprofits benefit from federal government funding is through grants and contributions. Which, you know, the best estimate from recent figures is that if federal government has a total expense of 547.3 billion in 2024-25, the category of grants and contributions within that, is about 19.6%. So, I think this means that unfortunately, likely the grants and contributions budget may face a greater than 15% cut in many areas. Other areas are being protected, like many of the transfers to the provinces, like some of the big-ticket programs, like employment insurance. Those areas will be more protected, but there's not any talk about protecting these grants and contributions, specifically.
There are some big investments that include a significant commitment and focus to employment, workforce development, training, etc. And I think there was a big commitment, by the government, to maintain some of the really positive commitments that we've seen that have affected the sector, in terms of Canada summer jobs, other kinds of youth employment program funding, ongoing funding and support for measures like childcare, measures like pharmacare, dental care, those kinds of measures that I think are always welcome. We did see a lot of cuts, especially in departments like Employment Social Development Canada, Public Health Agency of Canada, Environment and Climate Change. Those are big funding departments that have funded some significant programs for Canadians, and they are all facing the same 15% cut.
This budget, it doesn't come out and say this directly, but it's really meant to be projected over four years. And the implication is that the level of austerity or reductions will continue throughout that four years.
Mary Barroll: Concerned that the nonprofit and charitable sector may be left behind in this budget, Jesse Clarke did a word search for “nonprofit” and “charity” on the 493-page document. Most strikingly, she found that, in the entire budget document, the word charity is not mentioned a single time. There were other significant omissions as well.
Jesse Clarke: I did a word search, and it was interesting to note that where the word nonprofit showed up twice, both times in relation to housing, there weren't any mentions of the word charity. And there weren't very many mentions of many equity-seeking groups, outside of particular context. But by contrast, the word capital appeared well over 300 times, the word investment appeared well over 700 times. So, I really see this as being a bit of a banker's budget, which isn't really surprising given where the Prime Minister's coming from.
Unfortunately, though, I think that a lot of what comes through in this budget, and the signals that charities and nonprofits can take from it, is that they're going to need to do more with less. Because the government uses this phrase actually, especially in the earlier sections of the budget, the idea of spending less to invest more. And I think there's a strong underlying logic, in this budget, that if everybody can just be patient, we will get there. We will attract increased investment. We will increase productivity. This will float all boats.
Mary Barroll: Chris Holz agrees there is little mention of the nonprofit sector in the Budget. But even without the nonprofit and charitable sector being specifically named, and in the face of significant cost cutting proposed, Chris Holz suggests that opportunities still exist in this budget for the nonprofit sector.
Chris Holz: To be candid, most of this budget is really around the economy and investment. There's not a lot about the charitable nonprofit sector. But that doesn't mean that there isn't any role for charities and nonprofits. Already, the 80,000 charities and nonprofits that exist in Canada are, in many cases, delivery agents for government services. So, while they're not necessarily referenced, that doesn't mean that there's no vision for that. I would also just say, for things like housing and infrastructure, for even things like refugee support, especially in light of the current geopolitical environment that exists today, there will be funding that's likely to be available for those organizations, but you also got to look at the broader perspective.
There are cuts that are going to be implemented over a period of time. Some of those are showcased, at a very high level, if you read the text carefully. Others are not specifically identified. What does that mean for charities and nonprofits if 15% of the funding to one of our core department funding partners is being cut? That may have an impact for us. What does that mean? Well, it means, we either need to do things better and more effectively. We need to have data that demonstrates the impact of what we do. And if we don't have it, we better go find it, pretty quick. We better find champions that demonstrate or support our organization within government that see the value that we bring. We may need to look at things like partnering with other agencies for a smaller funding pool. Maybe that's shared services. Maybe that's amalgamation or other kinds of initiatives, but it's a different environment than what existed the ten previous years.
Mary Barroll: One important area that did not escape the Federal Budget cuts, is Canada’s international aid funding.
News clip “The Mark Carney government is slashing aid to pre-pandemic levels. In all, the feds will cut foreign aid spending by $2.7 billion over the next four years.”
Mary Barroll: The impacts of the cuts are even more profound because they were made in the wake of the Trump administration’s sudden dismantling of USAID last year, that saw Canadian aid organizations scrambling to fill at least part of the void left behind. Paul Farran, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Cooperation Canada, explains the long-term impacts of the cuts – to critical work in the field, but also Canada’s leadership role and credibility, among other like-minded countries involved in international aid.
Paul Farran: These cuts do raise critical questions around which commitments remain, what programs are protected, what will happen to Canada's leadership role in some of these sectors. And without some clear answers, there is a risk that we lose some of our credibility, going forward.
Mary Barroll: Paul Farran is clear that it’s not just Canada’s credibility on the global stage that will be impacted by this shift. He’s concerned about the on-the-ground, life-saving work that will be affected by what he calls “disproportionate” cuts. He’s also concerned that they signal a withdrawal by Canada, from the global aid system that had long been a crucial part of our country’s soft power, global influence, trade relations and ultimately our national security.
Paul Farran: I think my first reaction is that the budget represents a step back from Canada's global engagement, at a moment when needs are only getting higher, probably higher than at any point in recent history. The government is reducing the international assistance envelope by $2.7 billion, over four years. For NGOs and partners, overseas and more importantly for communities overseas, the implications are real. These cuts will mean fewer resources for life-saving work. It could be anything from vaccination campaigns to health to food security to crisis response. And these cuts also undermine, in a sense, more medium- and longer-term planning and enabling partners to effectively deliver on their programs. And because international assistance is part of Canada's soft power toolkit, these reductions do weaken our global influence, as a country, and our ability to build stable trade relationships, and even to further our own security. So, I think in short, this budget shrinks probably one of the most cost-effective tools Canada has to prevent crises, before they reach us.
Cuts that we've seen in this envelope are disproportionate. If you look at the amount that's spent on international assistance, it is about 2% of Canada's federal budget. So, for every dollar, there's about two cents that goes to international assistance. However, the size of the cuts in this budget represents about 5% of the total savings that this government is seeking to make. So, we could argue in a sense that while we were not necessarily surprised to see cuts, we were surprised to see the size of the cuts, vis-a-vis other sectors, as well as a lack of transparency in order to enable us to really gauge what that will look like and what the vision is going forward, which could also allow us to determine what types of programs will be affected.
Planning becomes almost impossible, in a circumstance where it's very hard to operate and achieve impact if you can't engage in multi-year planning. You can't build health systems. You can't strengthen women's rights organizations. You can't support peace building with uncertain, shifting budgets that are being slashed without any or with little notice. And this reduction in Canadian funding also risks interrupting services, losing staff, weakening the very networks that respond when crisis hits. This work is only made more difficult if we cannot have clarity, in terms of what the vision is, where the cuts will be. SFX: Sound of coins
Mary Barroll: It may not be easy for many organizations to navigate where the cuts will emerge, and how their missions fit into the government’s new vision, as it is reflected in the federal budget. But in order to mitigate any cuts and formulate a plan to capitalize on the potential opportunities in the budget, Chris Holz says it’s critical that organization leaders take the time to carefully review the full document to glean where those opportunities might be found within the new priorities the budget highlights.
Chris Holz: Everyone should read the budget document. There are things in there that help to set the context. It's also 493 pages of wonderful text that will put you perhaps to bed or will frighten you or will make you very excited. But I think what's relevant for charities and nonprofits starts with what area do we operate in? What kind of funding do we access from government? Because I can tell you, I mean, it'll become obvious in about half a second. There are departments where there is gonna be a 50% cut to operations over a three-year period. So, it's not a one-year wonder, it's a three-year signaling to the charitable nonprofit sector and all kinds of other organizations outside of that. So, one thing would be to look to the department where you rely on funding, if you are accessing funding from government because that is a clear indication of what the near-term horizon will be for you.
But there are also new initiatives that are announced where, it may be in a different department or a different agency where, you know what, a case can be made that we fit this new frame and therefore we should look to that as a potential funding source.
Mary Barroll: While we can’t ignore the fact that a number of government departments are facing significant cuts, it’s also true that there are some departments might have dodged the worst of the cost cutting. Here is Jesse Clarke to tell us more.
Jesse Clarke: There is a very short list of departmental budgets that are being somewhat protected. In the sense that they're only getting about 2% of the cuts. Across the board, there are cuts are coming. Most departments are facing a 15% cut in the coming two years, in their operational spending envelope. However, there are some departmental budgets that are being protected. And these include Crown Indigenous Relations and Indigenous Affairs, Indigenous Services, Women and Gender Equality Canada, and the Federal Research Councils, as well as the Department of National Defense, Canadian Border Services Agency, and the RCMP. So, I think that, in and of itself, is quite an interesting statement, in terms of where the money is and is not going, in this budget.
Mary Barroll: Emphasizing that the sector will need to get more creative and resourceful than ever, Chris Holz remains cautiously optimistic about how nonprofits should interpret the overall funding environment in Canada, over the next year.
Chris Holz: Even within the budget itself, there's a lot of hope for optimism. So, it doesn't mean everything is gonna be squeezed by 15% over three years. That would not be a correct read of things. It does mean that some folks may actually do better, under the current environment. In the housing space, certainly, things are going to be happening that have been very difficult. Nonprofits that are looking to build housing with wraparound services, there'll be more of that to come because there'll be a lot more need for that, and there's a lot more funding available to do that and more creative ways to do that that we've been not so nimble to be able to take advantage of. So, that's just one example. But in other areas, it will mean that funding will be more constrained, and it may mean that there's a need for some consolidation.
To the extent that organizations can diversify their funding sources, the better off they're going to be. At a minimum, provides a level of assurance to governments that, it's not about if we cut funding what happens to the organization. It's like a proof point that this organization is actually able to generate revenue from multiple sources. If anything, it's actually more of a confidence that we should keep providing funding.
Some organizations are so reliant on government funding that the act of providing funding to from government actually makes them dependent and actually weaker, ironically, and that's not the intention. That is the outcome, though. So, to summarize, I think, there's a lot of optimism for sure. Just because you're not in the budget specifically identified does not mean that there's no funding for you.
It means you have some work to do, to be relevant, to fit the frame of what government's trying to do, or to build the case outside of what the budget is and make it such a compelling issue that government has to do this. That’s possible. That’s possible and there's loads of examples of that.
Mary Barroll: Andrew Chunilall also sees signs of optimism when it comes to funding available to an already stretched sector. Some of this, however, comes from areas outside of government.
Andrew Chunilall: One of the things I will note is this sector is very creative and we're used to doing a lot with very little. So, there is a lot of ingenuity in leadership out there. However, we're going through a difficult time. We don't know how long this is going to be before the critical investments by government, the private sector, start to really take fold. And in the meantime, we're going to be stretched.
But I think, one of the things is that Canadians are a resilient people and our donors are incredibly generous. And we are seeing more funding envelopes from the private sector, as well. And so, although it's not going to completely fill the gap, there has been a movement from funders, including community foundations, private foundations, corporate foundations and directly from donors to allow for a more flexible funding environment.
So, in our world, you would see that there's a lot of restricted type gifts. We're seeing more unrestricted funding avenues that give organizations the flexibility to meet these demands and to use their own expertise, experience to meet them in the way that they see fit. This began during the pandemic era. Organizations started to get used to providing funding where they were relying on the expertise of organizations to make those calls, at the ground level. And you're seeing more community foundations do that.
But I think the funding that comes strictly from our sector is coming with fewer strings. Now, government funding will always be more difficult. There is contribution agreements. They are stricter. There's a higher degree of accountability from government funders. And so, there's less flexibility in those funding arrangements for underground agencies. But I know in the community foundation world, this revolves around a lot of the work that we're doing right now, to make it easier for our sector.
Mary Barroll: Chris Holtz says virtually no government departments have escaped the cuts, in the federal budget, that are made across the board, to greater and lesser degrees, and that this signals an intentional restructuring of the government’s budgetary policy and priorities, as reflected by the larger cuts to Employment and Social Development Canada or ESDC and Environment and Climate Change Canada. While smaller cuts were made to Indigenous Services Canada and Women and Gender Equality Canada, as Chris Holz explains.
Chris Holz: So ESDC, which is very large and, candidly, a lot of charities and nonprofits and social service agencies would probably access funding from ESDC. That is a 15% cut. But that's not unique. There are other departments where that level of magnitude for funding restraint is proposed. Others would be ECCC, so Environment and Climate Change Canada. There are other departments where funding constraint is not at that magnitude. So, Indigenous Services Canada, it's a 2% cut. Really, it's a flatlining of what the existing investments are, which really is eaten by inflation. So, it's a minus 2% cut. And so, those departments that even aren't touched, in fact, they are, in the sense that there is a grand restructuring that government is attempting to do, department by department. So, 15% for ESDC is an example, ECCC as well, Indigenous Services Canada, 2%, WAGE, Women And Gender Equality Canada.
Mary Barroll: Although the budget proposes only a 2% reduction for Indigenous Services Canada (ISC) and Crown-Indigenous Relations, a number significantly lower than the general 15% restraint faced by most other federal departments, unlike previous years, this budget has no Indigenous chapter. And though the Budget makes some commitments to First Nations, particularly around infrastructure and major project consultation, Indigenous leaders say the budget lacks specific investments in health, education, languages, and Truth and Reconciliation.
SFX: News buzz
News clip
Carney budget cuts Indigenous departments’ spending by 2%, CBC, Nov 2025
“Instead of closing the socioeconomic gaps between First Nations and non-Indigenous Canadians, this budget is going to make things worse. When it comes to new funding, $2.3 billion over three years was announced for clean drinking water programs. There will also be $10.1 million over three years, for consultations with Indigenous right holders on major projects being fast tracked. And there’s $1 billion dollars, over four years, for an Arctic Infrastructure fund for roads, airports and seaports for military and civilian needs. But Indigenous leaders had been hoping for generational funding to close gaps in infrastructure and education. Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak: “I think that Canada needs to do better, come up with a plan, close the $360 billion infrastructure gap.” Natan Obed: “It’s really disheartening to not have an Indigenous section and then an Inuit-distinction based section within the federal budget.”
Mary Barroll: In terms of addressing Reconciliation, equity, or diversity-focused initiatives, Jesse Clarke also feels that this budget falls short.
Jesse Clarke: It's good that there was, specifically, a strong effort to maintain funding for Indigenous programming. That's a very welcome step towards Reconciliation, to really set that aside as an area that can't be touched the same way. In terms of regional equity, other than maintaining the regional economic development bodies, looking at the rural-urban divide, it wasn't an emphasis that came across very strongly. Likewise with diversity-focused initiatives, it's very interesting. This is where this budget, to my mind, is such a sharp contrast from recent budgets, where we may have seen some very significant macroeconomic initiatives and I think this is a very macroeconomic budget. But they were balanced, in the Trudeau government, with some various targeted programs for specific communities. I'm thinking of some of the great investments in the Black community, in the last federal budgets, investments in specific organizations. There wasn't as much of that. You know, there was certainly some pieces of investment in specific community centers or specific infrastructure projects, you know, a lot of that investment comes in the form of infrastructure specifically. And I mean, we need infrastructure. But it doesn't necessarily lead to reducing inequality just on its own. So, I think that's something we've seen a lot in the charitable sector, right? It's one thing to pay for the building, but you also have to pay the people who are working in the building if you're actually going to have an effective program.
SFX: News buzz
News clip
New Statistics Canada report breaks down the rising tide of hate and cyber crime in Canada, CP24, Oct 2025
“Canada has seen a troubling and steady rise in hate crimes in many communities from coast to coast, putting many Canadian communities on high alert, as well as police departments around the country trying to combat acts of violence, vandalism, and intimidation, with a nearly 50% increase in reported hate crimes over just the past two years.”
Jesse Clarke: The other thing that concerns me, the diversity question, as well. I think we're all aware that there's been a growing level of polarization. Political polarization, a growing far-right movement, in Canada, that some organizations have been tracking. And one of my concerns about this budget is that we're not really doing much to try and reach out to people who are feeling disenfranchised and disconnected. And that, I think, leaves a big opening for further growth in that polarization, and further disconnection. To me that’s a bigger concern, in terms of overall national commitment to things like diversity, you know, inequality overall, is that by leaving this space for this level of frustration that exists around issues like immigration and affordability and not really doing a lot to really address that head on.
SFX: News buzz
News clip Jennifer McKelivie, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, Nov 2025 “Budget 2025 Canada Strong is making generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing. And $115 billion over five years for infrastructure. These strategic investments will build major infrastructure and homes and create lasting prosperity, empowering Canadians to get ahead. We are working, in collaboration, with provinces, territories, municipalities and Indigenous communities to build a stronger economy, lower housing costs and make life more affordable for Canadian families.”
News clip
What Carney's federal budget includes for everyday Canadians, Global News, Nov 2025
“On the housing front, we already knew about the removal of GST for first-time home buyers, as well as the Build Canada homes fund of more than $13 billion, over 5 years. But surprisingly, nothing more or new aimed at improving housing affordability.”
Mary Barroll: An October 2025 survey conducted by Abacus Data found that approximately nine in ten Canadians, regardless of political affiliation, are concerned about the state of housing today. Nearly four in ten Canadians, according to the survey, named it as their top concern within their community. But how exactly is the budget addressing this concern, and where do nonprofits and charities fit in? Andrew Chunilall explains.
Andrew Chunilall: What we are seeing, in this budget, is an attempt to address housing issues through what we call non-market methods. That is about the government coming to the table with capital and hopefully bringing non-profit capital to the table, as well. So, in the community foundation world, we have about seven and a half billion dollars of invested assets, and there are community foundations in Hamilton and London, Ontario, as an example, that are putting their money, alongside public money, to create social housing or what we call through non-market means. And this allows people that wouldn't normally be able to get into the housing market an opportunity to do so. And we're starting to stimulate that process more because the demand is particularly high now. So that is an example of where the budget is targeting a specific area of need, and that's housing. SFX: Sounds of construction
Mary Barroll: Going back to Jesse Clarke’s word-search of the budget, you’ll recall that housing was the only section where nonprofits were specifically mentioned. While Jesse Clarke is encouraged by this recognition of the sector’s role in addressing the housing affordability crisis, she also cautions that more than just investment in infrastructure is needed for successful communities.
Jesse Clarke: I think housing definitely is really the main community focused investment that was called out in this budget, with a very significant investment and a new agency, Building Canada Homes. That's where the nonprofit sector is actually explicitly mentioned. There's an acknowledgement that nonprofit housing is an important part of that picture. The need to invest in affordable housing. It really includes all the actors in that sector, the nonprofits and charities, as well as governments, as well as the private sector, are all seen as part of that strategy. And that's really encouraging because we know this is a very significant challenge. Similarly, they are making some investments, for example, in building hospitals or building community centers, in these infrastructure pieces, building childcare centers, but not necessarily coming along and saying there'll be additional funding to operate this infrastructure. So, it's a bit of a mixed picture in that area, right? I mean, it's good, I'm happy to see them maintaining existing commitments around childcare, dental care, pharmacare, all of those existing commitments are being maintained, which is great. But I think there's a strong recognition that there's growing needs and growing gaps, in terms of how much funding is needed for all of those sectors. And just doing infrastructure in and of itself is not enough.
News clip Housing crisis and domestic violence, CTV News, November 2025
“The housing crisis is impacting those experiencing domestic violence. That's according to a new report by the University of Calgary School of Public Policy. The issue is even more pressing as police report more incidents of domestic violence in our city. It's an alarming statistic. Police say domestic violence calls have gone up 3.6% over the last year and up 14.2% compared to the 5-year average.”
Mary Barroll: As with so many issues facing Canadians today, the housing crisis creates a wide range of impacts that many people may not see first-hand, but that disproportionately impact women and children. I spoke with Aline Nizigama, CEO of YWCA Canada, to better understand the link between housing and intimate partner violence and gender-based violence. She shared her thoughts on how the budget is addressing this issue, and her concerns about other supports for women and children that seemed to be left out of the planning.
Aline Nizigama: We’re happy to see this really increased focus on investment in housing. What continues to be a worry for YWCA Canada, and our local YWCAs, and other partners in women's housing movement, is a need for a carve out for women and families, recognizing that there is a connection between housing and the housing crisis that we see, and intimate partner violence and gender-based violence, in general. So, one of the things that worked, in previous iterations of the implementation of the National Housing Strategy, was that there was a 25% carved out that was specific targeted funding pots that were allocated to the sector. We didn't see that, and we want to work with the government again to see some of that materialized, in this implementation of this investment in housing. We need to see, and I know this was part of the announcements, a carve out for shelters and transitional housing specifically, because these are critical spaces where we help people who are in some of the most difficult positions, where it's often a question of life and death. And so, we want to see that implemented.
And we also want to have a commitment to deep affordability and to building things fast, to having innovative solutions that emerged from the wisdom of communities and seeing, as part of the building, holistic service models. It's not just housing, but it's also all the other wraparound services that we need to have. And lastly, we also need to see a commitment to building more permanent housing and a commitment to keeping that affordability in perpetuity. Because we know that sometimes we build things and they are affordable, but then the market comes in or that affordability is not protected over a long period of time. All these are going to really strengthen the good things that we're seeing in how Build Canada Homes is signaling that it wants to work with community-based housing developers like the YWCA movement.
News clip
Ministers Promise $660M for Gender Equality Programs, CPAC, October 29, 2025
“The sad reality is that we’re still seeing incidents of gender-based violence in our country as well as rising hate and violence targeting 2SLGBTQ+I communities are a stark reminder that equality and safety must continue to be defended. That’s why in Budget 2025 we’ll provide sustained funding, to advance equality and inclusion across Canada. This serious long-term commitment will ensure constant progress towards equality and safety for women, for girls and for 2SLGBTQI+ people and I think for that we should all be proud today.”
Mary Barroll: Shortly before the budget was released, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne and Women and Gender Equality Minister Rechie Valdez announced the budget would mark $660.5 million in funding, over five years, for the Department for Women and Gender Equality. I asked Jesse Clarke to weigh in on how well she thinks this budget addresses equity for women, gender diverse people and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities.
Jesse Clarke: First of all, to be clear, I'm a feminist, I'm member of the 2SLGBTQI+ community, and I actually, many years ago, was a gender equality specialist at Global Affairs Canada. So, I do wanna say, it was wonderful to see the announcement that specifically committed to funding women's rights and to 2SLGBTQIA+ organizations, with sustained funding over the next four years. And protecting them, even though it's still a bit of a reduction, this is 2%, it's not the reduction that many other departments are facing. And I think there's huge congratulations are due to many organizations in the sector that advocated very effectively for this commitment. That was after many, many months of effort behind the scenes.
It's a huge win and especially to many smaller organizations who rely on WAGE funding, of which there are dozens, at very least, across the country. And I also think it's a very important signal of this government's ongoing commitment to these communities, given the broader context globally, that we're facing, where we're seeing a lot of backlash and cuts. So, that's the good news, in terms of the budget.
Mary Barroll: But not all the news on the gender equity front is good.
Jesse Clarke: I was reading a number of different analyses on this budget, and I appreciated some of the analysis from the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women, CREAW. They had pointed out that, of course they welcome the WAGE announcement, but there are many other elements of the budget that don't do much to invest in areas where women and other marginalized groups face challenges, just childcare, long-term care.
Their analysis, over many years, and they have a great deal of published research to support this, shows that women and other marginalized groups tend to suffer disproportionate impact from funding cuts. There were these boxes, if you go through the budget, these gender and diversity impact spotlights, I believe that they called out. And reading them as someone who was a gender equality specialist, I would have to give them maybe a C minus or D grade, in the sense that they were just sort of stating these general programs that are happening, including around community safety or economic investment that, therefore, because they were investing in these areas would assume that they would also have a positive impact on these groups. But without actually having a strategy that specifically, including the Government of Canada's own gender-based analysis strategy, it's not really shown very clearly in the details of the budget.
Mary Barroll: And while YWCA Canada’s Aline Nizigama sees some reassuring announcements in the budget, she shares Jesse Clarke’s concern that the budget misses the mark in some key areas
Aline Nizigama: We also noted the lack of additional funding for the continuation of the 10-year national action plan to end gender-based violence. And we say this because we continuing to be at a time when gender-based violence has reached crisis levels in Canada. We see this crisis continuing to rise. The data shows that this issue continues to be at crisis levels. And so, we want to work with the government on this. We also call for actions on Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and the calls for justice that were also included in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
We also noted other critical gaps, which included a lack of new funding to expand and enhance the Canada-wide early learning and childcare program. We know that accessible, affordable, community-based childcare is essential to women's economic participation.
This economy is really hard, especially for single parents. And we think that, as this government has signaled, a generational budget should include enhanced funding for the expansion of what is now called the $10 a day childcare program, and as well as the other early learning programs. In our analysis, we advocated again for $500 million over five years, to expand this program.
And so, we want to see this commitment. We worry about the long wait lists that continue to exist, people not having options or struggling to afford childcare, children not being set up to achieve their full potential, and women feeling stuck, especially the younger people that are facing real choice issues around affordability challenges. We know that ultimately this is not great for the economy. We use the Quebec case a lot. This was a study that has shown that every dollar invested has multiple folds of returns. Just anecdotally, we know that in certain areas of Quebec, where there was the biggest increase in childcare availability, mothers’ employment went up by 67%. And our own public opinion polling data shows that Canadians see this and agree that there's a need. It's very popular. Our data shows that 73% of Canadians get it and agree that this program needs to be, not just maintained but expanded, and kept affordable so that we can all participate fully in the economy. There's a lot of responsibility for the federal government to show up and support the sector, in rising up to the occasion for parents.
Mary Barroll: The question of how the government should support women was highlighted by the March 2025 cabinet shuffle, when the dedicated Minister for Women and Gender Equality (WAGE) was eliminated. A coalition of over 400 feminist and women's organizations, including trade unions, women's groups, and community organizations, collectively organized to denounce the elimination of the ministry, as well as proposed budget cuts. This coalition-driven advocacy resulted in the reinstatement, in May 2025, of WAGE, with Rechie Valdez as its minister. YWCA’s Aline Nizigama shares how this significant win demonstrated the power of a collective voice in potentially shaping some of the outcomes seen in the budget.
Aline Nizigama: In our sector, we believe that there is strength in numbers. And we know that it took more than 400 organizations that came together and advocated for the reinstatement of a Women and Gender Equality department and a dedicated minister. And I like to cite something from my African tradition. It's a proverb that says, if you want to go, fast, go alone. And if you want to go far, go together. And so, we know that this means coming together as a sector and putting together our strength and having that collective action to shape programs and policies that will come from the operationalization of this budget. We know that we still need to work together on applying gender-based analysis plus to the rest of the budget. And this includes areas such as AI, defense, resource extraction, changes to immigration, changes to the justice and law reforms that we know are coming, tax reforms, and really analyzing the impact that will have on diverse populations of women and their families.
So, we wanna see a workforce strategy and we know that we need to work together as a sector to care for frontline workers. Valuing women, majority workforce, which in the nonprofit, we see over 70% of the workers being women or gender diverse people and work beyond the feminist sector and our other partners and broader partners, organizations such as Imagine Canada, other federated organizations and coalitions serving youth, those working in the women's mental health, mental health in general, Indigenous and Black and racialized populations serving organizations, in general, to make sure we are caring for the carers. And this continues to be a need as well.
News clip Carney wouldn't describe Canada as having feminist foreign policy, Canadian Press, November 2025
“I recognize the more work that we need to do in Canada, with respect to gender-based violence. I mean, it's not an economic issue first and foremost. It is an issue of justice. It affects Canada. It affects everyone around that table. Different countries put a different priority on it. I think that's part of our policy, as well. So yes, we have that aspect to our foreign policy. But I wouldn't describe our foreign policy as feminist foreign policy.”
Mary Barroll: Words spoken by Prime Minister Carney during a November 2025 G20 summit press conference in Johannesburg got him in hot water at home. Reactions from some Members of Parliament were swift – Liberal MPs hastily restating the government’s commitment to gender equality and opposition MPs expressing their condemnation of Carney’s message:
News clip
MPs weigh in on Carney's comments on Canada's feminist foreign policy
Karina Gould, Liberal MP: “As Canadians, we expect that we're going to stand up for gender equality around the world and here in Canada. Canada is a country where we care deeply about the pursuit of equality between genders.” Leah Gazan, NDP MP: “First with having feminist organizations across the country having to fight for even a Minister for Women and Gender Equality. His cutbacks to WAGE which feminist organizations had to fight to keep in, his lack of funding in sexual and reproductive health. His back turning on shelters across the country. I think Prime Minister Carney is making it very clear he is no friend to women and he is no friend to gender equality in this country.”
Mary Barroll: Canada’s international development organizations also continue to closely watch the government’s commitment to supporting gender equity, both in Canada and abroad. Paul Farran outlines why this is important and how the government’s new budgetary priorities may be misaligned with principles of feminist international assistance policy and cooperation.
Paul Farran: This alignment has become more worrisome given this recent messaging that we've heard. The Prime Minister has stated that Canada no longer has a feminist foreign policy. But that does raise a number of question marks, including around commitments made under Canada's feminist international assistance policy. So, that recent statement from the Prime Minister triggered an open letter from close to 100 organizations, many of whom are Cooperation Canada members. And Cooperation Canada is also signatory to this statement signaling our deep concern in terms of the wrong signal that this is sending at a moment when gender equality and LGBTQI+ rights are being rolled back globally.
At the same time, the budget signals reductions in global health, and those are sectors where women, girls and gender diverse people are most likely disproportionately affected and where Canada is also traditionally led. That means that we've built networks, we've built expertise, we've built partnerships, we've achieved real outcomes. And that's something that we should be nurturing, going forward, in terms of establishing a vision for our international engagement. In short, a feminist or a solidarity-based approach is not about the branding, it's really about directing resources to the people who face the greatest risks in conflict, climate disasters, through economic shocks and that this requires predictable, long-term public investment, not shrinking envelopes or changes to rhetoric.
Mary Barroll: What could be an alternative path forward? I asked Paul Farran how he thinks the government could change its approach to better support long-term international development and human rights centered partnerships.
Paul Farran: I think it's fundamental to understand that every dollar we invest in international assistance, if that's well planned, that's predictable and transparent. It's not only the right thing to do, but it's also the smart thing to do. And that has positive repercussions for Canada, both in terms of our own economy and also in terms of our security. So, I think what we'd like to see, number one, is Canada really have a well-rounded version where international assistance is not seen as an add-on. It's really part of the foreign policy toolkit. And it has value as a soft power, in terms of complementing the work that we do. Using military resources to address a conflict or a crisis is tenfold in terms of the investment required to build resilient communities.
We are hoping to at least protect the amounts that are remaining so that these amounts really remain focused on addressing poverty and inequalities with the understanding that doing so is not an act of charity. Doing so is first of all, an obligation and commitments that Canada has made. It's the right thing to do. At the same time, is also the smart thing to do for Canada's own values, for Canada's own economy and for our own security.
I think the bottom line is really that as Canadians, we really benefit when the world is more stable. Canada is a trading country. Canada is an outward looking country, and our economy needs foreign markets, it needs stable partnerships and international assistance is one of the tools that helps us create those conditions.
Mary Barroll: Canada’s engagement beyond its borders is often framed in terms of strategy—trade, security, stability, and long-term economic resilience. The idea is that when global systems are stronger and more predictable, Canadians are better positioned to prosper at home. Those strategies have served Canada well for decades. But with the recent impacts of Trump’s tariffs on our economy, a soaring cost of living and a housing crisis, many Canadians are currently experiencing a very challenging reality in communities across the country.
SFX: News buzz
News clip
“Unfortunately, it's become the reality, for the last couple years, that we see food prices continue to go up. So, at the Ottawa Food Bank, we had over 588,000 visits last year.
That's up 101% since 2019, and that's driven a lot by the cost of living in a city like Ottawa, and food prices continue to rise.
News clip
GTA Indigenous centres worry about job losses, cuts due to federal budget, CBC, Nov 2025
“This downtown foodbank is already struggling to meet the rising demand. It’s housed within the Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre, one of the spots that fears losing funding after the federal budget was released. Redbow Toulouse: “Some of the positions and stuff we have, it’s going to be very hard to keep people even employed because living in the city is very expensive. We’ve had to set capacity limits for things. We had to turn people away, had to tell people, we’re sorry we don’t have anything we can give you. Sean Longboat (Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres): “We were extremely disappointed. The Liberal government had promised in their election platform, to enhance support for friendship centres and what they did was the exact opposite. Friendship centres serve people at all stages of the life cycle, so our children, our youth, our elders, they’ll be impacted.”
Mary Barroll: Here at home, Canadian charities and nonprofits are already stretched to the limit and sector leaders are now rethinking their own budgets and priorities, in response to the 2025 federal budget, whether that means ramping up advocacy, forging closer ties with government, or finding other creative ways to navigate the federal budget cuts coming, in 2026 and beyond. At the same time, our guests remind us that the nonprofit sector has invaluable expertise, working on the frontlines of virtually every one of the challenges facing Canadians today, and can be a crucial partner to the government in achieving its priorities. Here’s Aline Nizigama to explain.
Aline Nizigama: The government needs to work with organizations that are experts in the frontline work. And the YWCA movement is a really good example. We are old as Canada's confederation itself, and we've built real expertise in all the areas where we work, whether that is ending gender-based violence and so, prevention and intervention, building women-led housing that includes the whole continuum of housing, shelters, transitional housing, and permanent, affordable housing, championing child care and women's well-being. That includes, again, programs like after-school care, newcomer services, wellness programs, programs like achieving economic equity, employment, reskilling, upskilling programs, and working with young people to secure inclusive futures. All of these are areas of expertise that we've built and that we think we do best, that we can help bring into conversations to support the government in achieving its own priorities.
Mary Barroll: For Andrew Chunilall, the sector’s often localized vantage point can provide key data and experience to the work being done by the federal government. He discusses some of the ways community foundations are working with the federal government to help drive more informed decision making.
Andrew Chunilall: So, it's important to keep in mind this is a federal budget. So, it's a national budget. It cuts across a lot of specific areas. And you do need to have a local lens on the issues because we all live locally. We all are in our communities and our community's proximity to us is very close. And so, the federal government doesn't necessarily have that vantage point. And I think, the more information we can bring back to the federal government, through the work that we're doing, in the form of data and research and observations, helps the federal government to make better decisions. It really is about using the democratic process to inform decision making. And I find when we can do that in a very coordinated way, we get results, particularly within federal, provincial, and local budgets.
Many community foundations release what we call a Vital Signs Report every year. That Vital Signs Report tracks how communities are doing in relation to specific markers. And it covers things from homelessness to mental health to community engagement to public transit to sense of belonging. And we use that as a tool in our conversations with government to say, here's how we're doing, but here's also a pathway to how we can do better. And that helps to narrow the discourse with government, in a very focused way, so that we can be at the table, helping to encourage government where funding should go and where leadership should be focused in on, and in moving some of those needles that are identified in the Vital Signs Report.
Mary Barroll: Of course, bringing that research and experience to the table means having a place at the table in the first place. And to do that requires building relationships with the right staff in the right departments. Chris Holz offers his suggestions on how nonprofit leaders can adjust their strategies to adapt to new governmental priorities and build new relationships. It starts with getting a clearer understanding of the big picture communicated in the budget.
Chris Holz: Number one, read the budget. Read it in its entirety. The stuff that is directly relevant to every organization, but also the broader context. If you don't understand the context, it doesn't come across well when you're advocating for this very, very specific issue, and it does not fit within the frame of the decision-makers you're looking to engage. So, it's important. You have to start with that.
I think you have to also be open-minded and creative. That's not a criticism of our sector that we all support. What I mean by that, is we may think of something in a very particular linear way, but there may be other ways to think about it. So, we may feel that we are an ESDC grantee, but you know what? There's a case to be made that actually we're a WAGE-related organization, meaning that there's a component that's women and gender equality related that actually, we could showcase and focus. Just making this up as an example. I think the third thing is, you know, a lot of people, a lot of decision makers, in the sector, may be of the view, ah, we just need to get to the minister.
That's part of it, but that's not all of it. Part of it is engaging with department officials, let alone political staff, let alone like a minister. And I think, for a lot of organizations, it's about even getting attention. We're so small, how would anybody care about us as a teeny, tiny organization? Well, there's loads of examples where that is possible. So, it starts with, what is our strength? Is it the outcome? Do we get a lot of media? Do a lot of stakeholders love us? Does the municipality where we operate, does the mayor, is the mayor a champion? That may be a bad thing. That might be a great thing. But there's always something where we start. It's like climbing a mountain. So, so one is read the budget. Understand the environment that we're in. Understand the relevant components where we fit. And then, candidly developing a strategy and a tactical plan to build the case for either preserving what we have or adjusting to what is new or avoiding what may be coming and certainly diversifying our revenue beyond this one funding source. The Government of Canada is a very large entity, of course, but the provinces and territories, let alone municipalities, may be another funding source, let alone the private sector, especially.
Mary Barroll: For organizations that have been successful in creating relationships with department staff, political officials, and maybe even ministers, Paul Farran believes that there is still an opportunity to do the advocacy work that can influence budgetary decision-making.
Paul Farran: We still haven't seen how this budget will be operationalized. We've only seen some numbers, in terms of cuts. We've also seen the government retract in terms of cuts in other departments, following the budget. So, bringing it down, for example, from 7 to 2%, in terms of cuts. So, I guess the message here is that, in the run-up to the spring economic statement, which we would anticipate sometime in July, and decisions made between now and then, we still have an opportunity to define what that will look like, to understand what the size of the envelope is, and so on. So, I think that it's an important moment, in the coming months, in terms of the advocacy we will conduct, but also in terms of having these constructive conversations with decision makers, with policymakers, and doing so across the political spectrum.
Mary Barroll: And when it comes to advocacy, Aline Nizigama has this advice, stemming from the success of the coalition-led advocacy work that led to the reinstatement of WAGE.
Aline Nizigama: I think it shows that when we are coming in numbers and saying this is not okay, this is a wrong way to look at this issue, we see a big pivot and fast pivots. And I think this is something that we need to continue to do. On the Women and Gender Equality piece, what was disheartening to hear, as we were headed into an election, built on what we see in elections south of the border, was that it was going to be a choice between the economy or supporting equity. You can't have those two separated. You can't have a thriving economy if you're not counting 51% of the voices. It's not an either or. You can achieve everything, actually, in bigger ways by looking at things differently. It was a collective wisdom. It was coming together with other sectors ,so that we are not all just in our own little corners, but saying, no, no, we can shape this issue and frame it in a way that actually serves all purposes. And so, I'm hopeful that the sector feels inspired and actually feels its power because there is a lot of power there.
Mary Barroll: The nonprofit sector is going to need all of its power, resilience and adaptability, as it continues to brace for ongoing economic challenges, rising demand for services, and reduced federal funding. The government’s budget focuses more on capital investment, productivity, and infrastructure, and while our experts see some cause for optimism for the nonprofit sector in the budget, they also agree that most organizations will have to tighten their belts to weather the economic storms ahead. The need for nonprofits and charities to employ strategic resourcefulness, increase collaboration, forge partnerships, and advocate for change through coalition-building is greater than ever. We’ll close now with a few final thoughts and practical takeaways from each of our guests.
Chris Holz: I think what folks should be mindful of is, over the coming year, and certainly over the next three years, there will be a need to do better with less or to do better by partnering with others. Certainly, to demonstrate what we do as an organization and our value proposition. Because we've been doing something for 10 years doesn't mean that's the best way to do things. And I think for a lot of organizations, we need to take a hard look at how it is that we do what we do, and is there a better way to do it? That's a reality. To the extent that we can get into managing change, the better off we're gonna be, and to the extent that we do things the way that we've always done them, that's not gonna work out too well. So, I think we need to be mindful that we have to always be able to demonstrate value, the results that we generate, that there are stakeholders, whether we're in government or otherwise, that support what we do and can see the value that we bring and that we're doing it the best and most efficient way possible.
Aline Nizigama: We know that this is a new government. It's a continuation of previous governments, but it is a new tone. And we need to be able to translate our work, in words and language, that everybody can understand and support. We know that some of this is about translating our work in economic terms, for example. And I think it would be worthwhile to invest some resources to this work. I think we also need to talk about collaborating more and think about how we could achieve bigger things together by getting out of the spirit of competition for scarce resources. This is something that the feminist sector really does exemplify well.
Paul Farran: There are real opportunities to work together, even in a tight fiscal environment. I think, by working together, the government and civil society, and obviously the private sector and other partners, we have an opportunity to ensure that Canada remains a principled global actor in the years to come, and that we chart our own path. I think one of the, perhaps, unintended consequences of what we're seeing, in terms of American policy, is that it has in a sense unhinged Canada and put Canada in a situation where it could actually more readily affirm its sovereignty.
Andrew Chunilall: The thing that we are allowed to do that we don't do well enough or often enough is advocacy. That's real-time information and observations and experiences, in community, with your local government representative. And the more that we do, in that space, it always pays dividends. Politicians need to hear from us. They need to know what's going on. So, when they do the work of the government, they're well informed. And I think we just need to put more eggs in that basket. You could always say, hey, we need more money. We need more targeted support and things like that. That goes without saying. But those decisions don't happen unless we do the advocacy piece first. So, advocacy is where I would put all my eggs.
Jesse Clarke: My advice, specifically around government funding and government relationships, would be to really double down on your relationship building with government officials. It's a great time to be getting in touch and talking to your contacts and to officials about how they're understanding the budget and what advice they can give you, in light of the focus and the announcements that have come down and what are they being told internally. Relationship building is always gonna be really pivotal because if there is funding that's coming and there is still quite a bit of funding, the better your relationship is, the better positioned you're gonna be to take advantage of that funding. So, that's probably my main advice.
Mary Barroll: Thank you to all our guests for their keen insight and wise advice. Be sure to visit our website and our show notes for more information on the resources, reports and programs mentioned in this episode. If you’d like to hear more of what our guests have to say, check out our full video interviews on our website.
Music
CharityVillage is proud to be the Canadian source for nonprofit news, employment services, crowdfunding, e-learning, HR resources and tools, and so much more. Please take a moment to check out our website at charityvillage. com. We love to receive your feedback about our podcast and your ideas for stories you’d like to hear about, so please follow us, like and comment wherever you get your podcasts.
In the next episode of CharityVillage Connects, more than $20 billion sits in donor-advised funds across Canada—money that’s already received tax credits but hasn’t yet reached the communities it was meant to help. As charities struggle to meet rising needs, this growing pool of idle philanthropic capital raises critical questions: Should DAFs be required to meet minimum disbursement quotas? Is it time to rethink the rules for modern philanthropy? We dig into the debate around DAFs, exploring their benefits, challenges, and the urgent calls to ensure every donated dollar makes a difference.
That’s in our next episode of CharityVillage Connects. I’m Mary Barroll. Thanks for listening.
Sponsor’s Message:
Today’s podcast is brought to you by WUSC. For more than 50 years, WUSC has been working alongside communities around the world to catalyze positive education and economic outcomes for young people.
Now, Canadians have the chance to join us by volunteering internationally. As a WUSC volunteer, you’ll collaborate with local organizations, share your experience, and help co-create initiatives that expand opportunities for young people. Together, we can build a world where every young person belongs and thrives.
For more information about how you can use your expertise to improve economic opportunities for young people as an international volunteer, visit volunteer.wusc.ca. That’s volunteer dot W-U-S-C dot C-A.