Canadian Non-Profit Boards Have a Diversity Problem. Here’s the First Step to Fixing it.

Senator Ratna Omidvar comments on the lack of ethnic and racial diversity in the charitable sector.

In June 2019, the Senate Charities Committee tabled its final report. Buried in the 42 recommendations is one that deserves reexamination given the context of the day. Canadians are marching on the streets in response to the global movement to address and end systemic discrimination. The anger and pent up frustration in the Black and Indigenous communities is palpable. Governments, corporations, the media and other institutions are all taking a hard look at themselves to ask the question: what have we done to address this situation?

What about charities? In the Senate report we took note of the size, scope and influence of the sector. It touches all aspects of our lives, from religion to sports, from seniors to young people. It also wields sizeable heft in other aspects: it contributes 8 percent to the GDP and employs close to 2 million Canadians. What about its diversity then? 

Sadly, the absence of data gets in the way of answering the question with any real reliability.  An e-consultation conducted in connection to the Senate study, although not statistically significant, found that more than half of the organizations which responded to the survey did not collect data on diversity of employees or directors. 

The Senate Charities report took note of this and of the role that Boards of Governors play. It noted that directors of not for profits and charities “have the power to effect change, to set the agenda, to influence policy and to allocate funds, to make decisions that affect the lives of people who live, work, play in our country.” 

Further studies by academic institutions like the Diversity Institute at Ryerson University paint a picture of a sector that may talk the talk but is not that willing to walk it. For example racialized minority individuals made up 53.7 percent of Greater Toronto Area total population in 2017.  However, in the voluntary sector the Diversity Institute found a decrease in representation of racialized minorities in leadership roles at 17.4 percent in 2017, down from 17.6 percent in 2014. Only 38.1 percent of boards analyzed had at least 20 percent racialized minority leaders, 19 percent have none. Equally notable, 38.1 percent of senior management teams have at least 20 percent racialized minority representation, while 52.4 percent have none.

The Senate recommended a reasonable start: let’s get the facts. It recommended that the CRA include questions on both the T1044 and the T3010 on diversity representation on boards of directors as per the existing employment equity definitions. 

In this way, the data could be aggregated to present a fulsome picture of diversity in the sector on an annual basis. Based on clear evidence, the country and the sector could see if progress is being made, how and where. 

Since the report was tabled, events have overtaken it. The need to ensure that leaders reflect the diversity of our country’s population has heightened.  The sector does not have the time to wait for the report’s recommendations to be implemented. It must take action now. 

Each charity or non-profit can undertake such a review voluntarily. More importantly, large sector organizations, like Imagine Canada, Community Foundations of Canada, Ontario Nonprofit Network, and Philanthropic Foundations of Canada can request their membership to disclose this data to them on a volunteer basis. Given that the membership of these organizations is large, it would create a significant evidence base to draw conclusions from. Collected annually, it would give impetus to provide a national picture of diversity in the sector. Because the sector would be in the driver’s seat, it could choose to disaggregate the data to further understand issues of race and intersectionality. Most importantly, evidence could lead to action, the opportunity to compare success and challenges and share best practices. All without legislation. 

They could go a step further. They could make disclosure of such information a criteria for all members, thus making it mandatory within their association. This will send a powerful signal to the rest of society in Canada. 

The sector is often frustrated and hamstrung by the government in its effort to achieve its mission by doing good. It has urged the government to take it seriously, as it should. Here is an opportunity to state exactly how serious it is on a matter of national urgency. It is time for the sector to lead, to show the way for others, so that others may follow.  

Will the sector take up this call?  

Read the Op-ed on the Future of Good website