Onward and Uphill: Reflections on Federal Funding Advocacy

I would describe myself as a politically engaged person, but participating in a Day of Advocacy on Parliament Hill earlier this month was a new level for me. In this blog, I’d like to share my reflections and tell you about my experience joining a group of nonprofit leaders to advocate for Federal funding reform, as well as my thoughts on how to support our sector to engage politically.  

What is Hill Day? 

I’ll set the stage. The Fair Funding for Nonprofits Coalition is a relatively new initiative, supported by Imagine Canada and a group of 50+ organizations across the country. IONS has been on the Steering Committee for the last year, contributing to strategy for engaging the Federal government on reforms and improvements to funding infrastructure so that impact organizations can more effectively do their work. Imagine Canada has been organizing a “Hill Day” annually for many years, and this year it was shaped around the goals of the Coalition. 

Taking part in this year’s Hill Day was a fast and in-depth education in this kind of advocacy, and illuminated some of the machinery of the political and bureaucratic institutions that resource much of our sector. I also got a glimpse of the effort and expertise required to engage at this level – the research and work of the staff at Imagine Canada cannot be understated. We were also well supported by Pear Tree Consulting who sponsored the event, and PAA Advisory who organized the logistics of the day including developing briefing documents, arranging the meetings, and supporting follow up action.  

The Goals of the Coalition 

Our briefing meeting, held a week before Hill Day, went over some helpful context including the Liberal Government’s mandate letter that outlines the 7 focus areas of the government, and suggested messaging around alignment of our goals with the different political parties. We had a chance to get into online breakouts with our small meeting teams to better understand how we could contribute to storytelling and communicating our asks. Our briefing documents outlined the 4 main “asks” of the Coalition: 

• Reform reporting requirements to focus on impact measures and meaningful accountability while reducing excessive administrative requirements 
• Adopt a ‘one partner, one profile’ approach to eliminate redundant administrative work when nonprofits are funded by more than one federal funder 
• Allow flexibility in how nonprofits move funds between budget lines 
• Favour longer funding terms and reduce wait times for funding approvals.  

The day I arrived in Ottawa was a nice, sunny day. I took the opportunity to fly in early to see some of the city and meet a friend for lunch before checking in and getting ready for the Fair Funding for Nonprofits evening reception. It was inspiring to hear the speakers -especially the sponsoring Member of Parliament, Chi Ngyuen, who wholeheartedly threw her support behind the Coalition, saying “too many Nonprofit organizations are constrained by outdated partnership models that are not designed for the scale of work they are now being asked to do.” 

I appreciated having the chance to mingle with a variety of folks who were interested in the coalition and showed up to the event to learn more and connect. The stories they shared with me about their experience with Federal funding better supported my talking points in the meetings the following day.  

The Public Service 

On Hill Day, we were up bright and early to meet for a group briefing before heading into our meetings for the day. People had meetings with Members of Parliament, Senators, and Bureaucrats across Departments of the Federal Government. Some members of our coalition were also scheduled to be in a roundtable with several staff from key ministries that have a significant role in funding the sector for a broader discussion on our asks.  

We took a taxi from downtown to one of the many buildings that house the public servant workforce of large government departments. Our first meeting was with a Bureaucrat who had experience in the nonprofit sector and was now in a position of great relevance to our policy asks. They were able to shed some light on some of the inner workings behind the changes we were advocating for and described how their department was taking steps to improve their funding systems. We spoke at length about internal systems and committees that we could engage with, and also discussed how approaching the issue from the angle of program design could also help our case.  

Who Holds the Power to Make These Changes? 

 In a previous briefing meeting, I asked our team lead a question I hoped wasn’t obtuse – “who has the power to make these changes we are asking for? What is the mechanism that must be adjusted?” I was very interested to learn that though there are many levers for this change, it practically comes down to the Treasury Board, which is in charge of the policy that governs the “Grants and Contributions” from the Federal Government – hundreds of financial agreements across not only the Community Impact Sector, but the private sector and other levels of government.  

A central ask of the Coalition is around standardization of funding processes across departments, as each Department of the Federal Government (eg. Economic and Social Development, Justice, Health, Women and Gender Equality) has their own procedures – and often within departments and across funding agreements there can be significant variation as well. This can put onerous administrative burden on applicants as they are required to submit the same information across different funders, which can add up to hundreds of hours of “extra” work. The time sink of doing this actively takes away from community impact work and strains the efficiency and effectiveness of organizations that serve community.  

The policy ask for “One Partner, One Profile” – a system where applicants can have their basic information shared across departments, along with some standardization of the information being requested – could be a solution that enables organizations to work more efficiently, and reduce administrative burden on both sides of the process. In addition, there could be a mandate on parameters for flexibility across budget lines – for example up to a 30% change from movement across lines not requiring approval.  

Data privacy and technology often arose as a concern across our conversations. A system like we are advocating for is significant and would likely require building a sophisticated data management and digital user interface program. However, in a constantly digitizing world it seems to be an area where a proactive investment could save time, energy, and money in the long run. Later in a meeting, someone joked that “fillable pdfs are not a digital system” and I thought that was an apt illustration.  

Members of Parliament 

Our second and third meetings were with Members of Parliament (MPs). Our team strode down the street near Parliament Hill, noting the location of CBC Radio-Canada before turning into a building with a small lineup for security screening. As we shuffled through, someone in the group ahead of us sighed after receiving a text, and let security know they were just going to leave as the person they were meeting had been called into a Committee meeting and had to reschedule. These kinds of last-minute changes are common, and require those who wish to meet with politicians to be nimble.  

We walked down a long hallway filled with the Parliamentary offices of individual MPs before arriving at the one we were there for. This second meeting was interesting in the difference of angle on the issues. For example, we spoke about how nonprofits work in community, and the implications of funding challenges in social dimensions such as gender where women make up much of the sector workforce and are more greatly impacted by precarious work and pay gaps. The MP suggested different committees that we could connect with to further our asks, and they committed to send a letter to the Treasury Board in support of us as well as other actions.

For our final meeting of the day, we headed to the “West Block”, which is where the House of Commons is – where MPs sit for proceedings (historically the House of Commons has been located in the “Center Block” which is currently going through renovations). It was interesting to pass through hallways where we recognized the spot where scrums take place and see the portraits of past Prime Ministers before being admitted to the “Lobby” right beside where the MPs sit. In an almost café-like setting, we sat in a coner arranged among other small groups with MPs, discussing the issues we hoped to find champions for. 

In this meeting, we were relieved for the MP to open by saying “I am one of your biggest advocates,” and conversing easily about the issues in the reading material that had been sent to their office. A big topic in this conversation was multi-year funding and the systemic challenge of committing to longer terms due to the fluctuations in the government’s annual fiscal position – and an acknowledgement that short term funding causes cascading issues in communities. This MP was interested in developing more “third party” funding groups that could disburse larger amounts of funding in smaller pieces within their own umbrella. They had talked to the Treasury Board about this model already. This MP also committed to supporting our follow up with various Committees and letters to further our asks.  

Influencing Power through Politics 

After our last meeting, my teammate and I decided it would be interesting to sit in the gallery of the House of Commons to witness the goings-on. When we arrived, only a handful of MPs sat in the great space, with one MP giving a long speech during the time for Private Members Business. Over the course of 30 minutes, more MPs trickled onto the floor until most of the seats were occupied. We knew ‘Question Period’ was about to begin when Prime Minster Carney took his seat. The verbal sparring and theatre of the parties showing support or detraction was compelling – something that doesn’t come through watching CSPAN videos of these debates.   

As we watched, I thought and felt lots of different things. Being in Ottawa was pretty different from my day-to-day experience at home. This city was built for the purpose of hosting the country’s most powerful people to make decisions that affect millions. The literal manifestation of colonialism and its implications is always on my mind (even more so as it was “Red Dress Day”) – and how deeply imperfect our political systems are, especially as they are rooted in upholding patriarchy, capitalism, white supremacy, and elitism.  

I was not used to seeing the streets and buildings filled with people in business wear with pins on their lapels, being called away or held up in important meetings. I wasn’t used to the use of speech and signifiers as the trade of a job, or how these meetings worked where there were rules and hidden infrastructure to know about. Lots – perhaps most – of us are not privy to how everything works in our political system, and feelings of disempowerment are valid. However, there are entry points to working with power, and influencing these systems to shape improvement for the people and causes we care about.  

Advocacy and Political Engagement 

This experience highlighted that though I have a reasonable understanding of the mechanisms of politics, there is so much that an average person may not have knowledge of. This is true of people working in the nonprofit sector who are occupied with trying to run organizations that serve the community. It would benefit everyone for us to be better equipped to engage and advocate for changes and improvements to systems that affect our work and ability to meet the social challenges of our time. 

To those of us that worked in the Community Impact Sector during the Stephen Harper years, there may still be apprehension to advocacy as a result of the restrictiveness of government. The new rules on lobby reporting for organizations likely don’t help with those feelings (and IONS will be sharing more about this soon). However, I think now more than ever we need to be politicially engaged. Especially with the context of the budget cuts to the Community Impact Sector in Nova Scotia and elsewhere, the increasing pace of technology and digitization, and the progression of political, social and environmental polycrisis in our world – the people in our sector are some of our strongest community minded leaders who have answers to problems.  

The only way we are going to be able to do this effectively and powerfully is together. If your organization receives Federal funding, I encourage you to join the Fair Funding for Nonprofits Coalition. If you learned something new or this blog resonated for you, or if you have more questions or thoughts to add, we would love to hear about it. Please leave a comment or send us an email, we always look forward to connecting.