Public Policy Sources #31:
Considering the Options

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

The Panel was assembled with the aim of improving the effectiveness and credibility of the voluntary sector. This was to be done by conducting research, by presenting draft proposals to be discussed in a broad consultation with the voluntary sector, and by offering specific recommendations in a final report. The research phase included initial consultations with government and voluntary organizations.

In its consultation document, the Panel offered four options for improving governance and accountability in the sector (Helping Canadians, pp. 40-44):

• an expanded role for Revenue Canada;
• a federal commission modelled on the Charity Commission of England and Wales, but respecting the jurisdictional realities of Canadian federalism;
• a federal-provincial agency with a more encompassing mandate; and
• a non-governmental body that would operate wholly within the sector, rather than being attached to government.

The Panel’s preference for establishing a federal commission, though not stated explicitly, is clear in its discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each option. Whereas, in discussing the other options, the Panel either is ambivalent or negative, in discussing the proposed federal commission it is much more positive, concluding that:

The only disadvantage is that a new institution must be created and this takes both resources and political will. (Helping Canadians, p. 43)

In other words, the Panel considered this option as having no operational disadvantages. This is surprising in light of the fact that the Charity Commission of England and Wales has come under sharp criticism over the past decade for the ineffectiveness of its operations. (See "The Charity Commission of England and Wales as a Case Study," below.)

The discussion document elicited 144 written submissions from individuals and voluntary organizations, and further discussions were held across the country (see Building on Strength, pp. 99-102). The final report concludes that:

[t]he creation of a new Voluntary Sector Commission by the federal government is an essential element in improving accountability and building capacity in the sector. We urge the federal government to move quickly to establish it with a goal to having it in place within a year. (Building on Strength, p. viii)

Given the obvious preference of the Panel expressed in the consultation document, it is not surprising to find that this VSC is little different from the originally-proposed federal commission.

This recommendation is puzzling on another score, however. Since there is no crisis necessitating such a rapid and radical departure from current arrangements,9 it is difficult to understand why such a near-term deadline is required. What is more, it would appear that meeting such a deadline would be extremely difficult. In the final report, the Panel itself notes that:

...discussions between the federal and provincial governments as to what roles can be combined and which must remain separate should precede implementation of a new Commission. (Building on Strength, p. 64)

Earlier, in the consultation document, the Panel had observed that:

At a minimum, achieving the co-operation of thirteen governments would be time consuming and cumbersome--if it could be achieved at all. (Helping Canadians, p. 43)

If the rationale and practicability of rushing towards the establishment of a VSC is unclear, the Panel’s own role in deciding that a VSC is desirable is more obvious. The Panel reached this conclusion despite the fact that this option was not the consensus choice of organizations involved in the consultation process. As the final report itself states:

The consultation produced no consensus of opinion as to a preferred model and, in fact, opinion was quite divided with the exception that almost no one favoured an expanded role for Revenue Canada. The lack of consensus is not surprising given that participants had relatively little time to digest and comment on such a complex question. Nor did we provide enough guidance in the Discussion Paper about the specifics of function and design. (Building on Strength, p. 62)

In fact, organizations had some six months in which to craft their replies and the issues, although admittedly complex, were ones with which they are familiar. As well, it cannot be assumed that the provision of further information and guidance would have led to increased support for the Panel’s recommended option.

Another important point to note is that, since only 0.2 percent of registered charities provided the Panel with a written response, it cannot be said to be expressing the will of the sector. Indeed, the Panel appears not even to have expressed the will of the majority of respondents to the consultation document, as it would appear that the option garnering most support in the consultation process was that of a non-governmental agency:

In spite of considerable support heard during our consultations for a non-governmental agency, we have significant reservations about this approach. (Building on Strength, p. 62)

Since the report does not detail the precise level of support for each option, however, this cannot be said for certain. More will be said below on the Panel’s reservations.

All this being the case, it is not clear what influence the consultation process had on the Panel’s recommendation for a VSC. It cannot be said, and should not be assumed, that this recommendation has the support of the voluntary sector. Undoubtedly, Panel members were motivated by the best of intentions. And of course, the fact that the argument they presented in the discussion paper failed to convince the majority of the respondents does not mean that a VSC is not the best option available. But intentions, however good, are no substitute for sound policy. The rationale for the establishment of a VSC must be reviewed critically.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Thursday, August 5, 1999.