Canada is under extreme pressure in the era of Trump. Our independence is being called into question in a way that has not happened for many decades, if not centuries. Our political and economic stability is being turned upside down. And Canadians are rising to the challenge of the moment with declarations of patriotism and defiance. As many are saying, this is a moment when we need to consider defending our nation through nation-building actions. This means investing smartly and rapidly in our hard and soft assets: our resources, our built infrastructure, our brains and skills, our media, our cultural identity.
Does philanthropy have a role in nation-building? Or is it best for philanthropy to focus its resources on “bailing out” organizations most hurt by the upheavals we anticipate? Private philanthropy in the U.S. is feeling both pressure and expectation to step in when government funding of social justice or climate or international development work is cut. This may well be felt to a lesser extent in Canada. There is urgency. The cuts mean real harm to people in the short term. And the response of philanthropy during the pandemic provides a precedent for stepping up and helping. But can philanthropy fill the gap? Is this the best use of scarce philanthropic dollars (and they are scarce compared to public dollars)?
Vinod Rajasekeran at Future of Good has argued that bailout philanthropy, as he describes it, should not simply be about rescuing organizations but also seizing the opportunity for future building. I agree. He suggests that philanthropic dollars, if deployed for rescue, should aim not to maintain a status quo but to make it better. Again, I agree. Private funders can use this opportunity to strengthen the operations of key partner organizations.
Funders can also accelerate their long-term investments in Canada’s future. Many in Canadian philanthropy has made this their strategy for decades. Here are some examples:
And I haven’t touched on many other philanthropic investments being made to strengthen our country. What this tells us is that philanthropy is already playing a strategic role in helping to build some of Canada’s most important hard and soft assets.
Are there still gaps in our nation-strengthening efforts? Yes. Could philanthropy do more and faster? Yes. This is a moment for private philanthropy to think even harder about the necessary long-term investments in creating a stronger Canada. Perhaps foundations will need to talk about aligning their efforts more systematically, since nation-building requires coordination and concentration. The relatively scarce resources of foundations will go farther when applied together. And this is not a matter simply of higher disbursements. The current 5% disbursement quota is a floor not a ceiling. Foundations can and do exceed it. Calling for more disbursements isn’t a strategy without a systematic approach to building stronger organizations and investing in a stronger country. Future-building is well within philanthropy’s mission. I predict we will see more of it in response to today’s Trumpian geopolitics.