3. History of charitable sector in Canada (1950 to present)

Estimated reading time: 13-15 minutes

As we saw in the last chapter, charitable giving in Canada originated within religious institutions and evolved into a structured sector, shaped by economic shifts and the impact of the world wars. From 1950 onward, we will examine how the sector expanded, became more secular, faced greater regulation, and grew more professionalized. We will also explore how the government and charities assumed new roles and how international aid emerged as a priority.

Emergence of international aid

Let’s start by looking at international aid, which underwent dramatic shifts in the late 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. In this post-war time, a wave of decolonization and newly independent nations in Asia and Africa expanded the role of Western nations in development assistance. In one year alone, 1960, dubbed the ‘Year of Africa’, 17 African nations gained independence. With the success of the Marshall Plan for European reconstruction, Western leaders believed that similar financial allocations to Asian and African countries could lead to rapid development there[1].

This ambition was also driven by Western efforts to open developing economies to trade. As a result, aid often came with conditions that kept newly independent nations tied to former colonial economies. Alongside these trade objectives were also efforts to curb communism, as the Cold War was in full swing. Aid became a tool of soft power – using influence, persuasion, and mutual benefit rather than force (hard power). The term soft power was later coined in the 1980s by American political scientist Joseph Nye.

Nye also noted that foreign aid isn’t always a form of soft power. When used more as a quid pro quo or transaction, it functions as purchase power[2], where aid is used to ‘purchase’ economic or geopolitical advantages. I emphasize this point because in present day discussions, it’s often assumed that aid is solely a form of soft power, when in reality, it’s frequently more transactional. Understanding how aid is used as a tool clarifies the motivations behind it, and thus the outcomes it will produce.

The 1950s and 1960s also saw the evolution of the ways that aid is transferred between countries. Aid began to be delivered through bilateral agreements, where the donor country’s government directly provided aid to the recipient’s government. Canada and other Commonwealth nations frequently used this model to aid developing former British colonies. Early Canadian bilateral agreements included with countries like Ghana, South Korea, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon), India, and Pakistan, focusing on education, infrastructure, health, and other areas.

Canada also participated in multilateral aid assistance, which means assistance that is pooled together from multiple donor countries and administered through international organizations. An early example Canada was involved in was the Colombo Plan (1950), which aimed to develop South and Southeast Asia. This initiative was greatly motivated by the desire to counter Soviet/communist influence in Asia, using the soft power approach mentioned above.

Bilateral and multilateral cooperation in this era fostered lasting relationships between donor and recipient countries, some of which continue today. While some view these lasting relationships as positive connections, others argue they contribute to aid dependency, trapping countries in a cycle of reliance. This mirrors the aid dependency issues caused by the Bretton Woods Institutions, discussed in the last chapter. These economic models often forced nations to rely on Western aid instead of fostering economic independence.

As international assistance became further formalized, the need arose for more predictable funding for global development efforts. In 1969, Canada took a leading role in coordinating a target spending amount for wealthy countries to provide to low and middle-income countries. The Pearson Commission was established, chaired by then former Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, to examine the past 20 years of international aid responses and provide a target rate.

The Pearson Commission Report proposed that OECD countries spend 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on Official Development Assistance (ODA), a concept established in 1969 to track and measure government aid[3]. This target became a symbol of commitment to global development, though few countries consistently meet it. Ironically, Canada has never reached this annual target. The only countries to consistently meet it are Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Luxembourg[4].

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, multiple famines in Africa significantly shaped international views on development aid. In the Sahel region, droughts and famines claimed over 100,000 lives, while in Ethiopia, the death toll ranged from 400,000 to 500,000[5]. There was much global attention to these crises including fundraising events like Band Aid (1984), Live Aid (1985), and the “We Are the World” charity single. In response, Canada increased its ODA funding from 0.33% in 1969 to 0.53% in 1975, the highest level Canada has reached to date. 0.53% in 1975 was approximately $1.6 billion, or about $10.6 billion in today’s dollars.

In the 1990s, as Canada took on a new role as a major peacekeeping nation, it significantly cut its ODA spending, from 0.45% in 1990 to 0.25% in 1999. This shift was driven by factors including the end of the Cold War, which prompted a reassessment of Canada’s foreign policy priorities. As a result, the need for funding decreased, as the use of soft power to combat the spread of communism was no longer necessary. Since 1999, Canada’s ODA funding has remained persistently low.

Canada’s international aid governance

As the global aid sector rapidly evolved, so did Canada’s foreign aid strategy. Canada’s early forays into aid in the 1950s and 1960s, in Keith Spicer’s words, had “virtually no policy aim beyond a lively anti-Communist instinct and an exhilarating vision of a free, multi-racial Commonwealth”[6]. In other words, Canada’s aid initiatives were more driven by political and ideological movements than by long-term strategy. By the late 1960s, Canada sought more strategic oversight and created the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) in 1968 to manage its international aid efforts. Around the same time, similar organizations were established in other countries, including the US (USAID – 1961), the UK (Ministry of Overseas Development – 1964), and Sweden (SIDA – 1965).

CIDA’s performance over the following decades was mixed, and hopefully, we’ll revisit this topic later in the blog. But CIDA managed Canada’s international aid portfolio until 2013 when it merged with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) to form the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development, now renamed to Global Affairs Canada (GAC). The merger itself sparked significant criticism, as it integrated Canada’s international aid with broader foreign policy priorities, leading to fears that aid would become more transactional, serving economic and geopolitical interests. Critics argued that development aid should be driven by a commitment to human rights, not be used as a tool for foreign policy. These ongoing debates will be explored in an upcoming chapter on foreign aid effectiveness.

Canada was not alone in its decision to merge its international aid and foreign affairs institutions. Other countries have made similar moves including in New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, and the UK. Most recently, with the turmoil surrounding USAID in the US, there are speculations of it being absorbed into the US State Department, which would lead to a similar outcome.

These mergers mark a significant shift in the philosophy and practice of international aid, reflecting a broader trend toward neoliberal policies and market-based solutions, rather than those grounded in human rights. For Canada, in my opinion, this move signaled a decline in commitment to international development, marking a departure from its strong history and reputation as a global leader.

Evolution of ethical frameworks in international aid

This period also saw key changes in the ethical frameworks guiding international aid. As mentioned earlier, the pre-war model, often referred to as the charity-based or generosity model, was rooted in religious giving. It relied on benevolent donors who assumed they understood the needs of affected people and could meet those needs through provisions like money, food, and clothing. But how are donors, who are often very disconnected from the aid recipients, supposed to deeply understand the needs of those people? This approach was rightly criticized because recipients were completely excluded from the decision-making process, leading to a failure to address their real needs, fostering aid dependency, and neglecting long-term solutions[7].

To address these shortcomings, the needs-based approach evolved from the 1960s to the 1990s, aiming to involve beneficiaries in assessing their needs and determining how they could be met[8]. However, this approach proved limited, as it overlooked deeper systemic issues like poverty and inequality and did not hold stakeholders accountable for upholding the rights of beneficiaries. Other approaches, such as the welfare approach and economic growth approach, were also tried during this period but ultimately failed for various reasons. These various failures highlighted the need for a new approach, one that was rooted in human rights.

This brings us to the rights-based approach, which emerged in the late 20^th century[9]. It is based in the idea that all individuals have inherent rights that must be the upheld in aid programs and policies. These rights include life, security, non-discrimination, an adequate standard of living, and access to health and education, among others. Grounded in international human rights law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966), this approach views aid access as an entitlement rather than charity. It also establishes accountability, where donors are responsible for ensuring aid effectiveness. This framework continues to shape international development today.

Canada and the United Nations

Let’s take a moment to review Canada’s relationship with the United Nations during these decades. Following the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN began to expand its focus beyond human rights, addressing a wider range of global challenges. These included economic development and health (1960s-1970s), environmental and gender concerns (1970s – 1980s), peacekeeping and humanitarian aid effectiveness (1990s), and sustainable development and climate change (2000s – present). As the UN became a key player in setting international standards and coordinating global response efforts, Canada remained a strong supporter of this multilateral approach.

Canada’s relationship with the UN strengthened in the latter half of the 20th century, largely due to its peacekeeping role. Canada is credited with creating modern peacekeeping through Lester B. Pearson’s 1956 proposal for the first UN Emergency Force (UNEF) during the Suez Crisis. Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1957, helping to form Canada’s peacekeeping identity (which we have since lost).

Throughout the 1990s, Canada was actively involved in several UN peacekeeping missions, including those in Rwanda (1994), the Balkans (1992-1999), and Somalia (1992-1993), all with humanitarian components. While Canada had successes, the period was also marked by controversy, particularly the 1993 Somalia Affair, where Canadian soldiers were accused of human rights abuses. This event significantly damaged public trust and reduced Canada’s military risk tolerance, leading to fewer international deployments since this event.

Since 2000, Canada has continued to support the UN, contributing to the creation of the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015) which aim to tackle global challenges like poverty, and the Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030), which broaden the focus to include environmental sustainability, inequality, and justice.

Growth and specialization of charities in Canada

Finally, let’s look at the growth and specialization of charities within Canada during this period. The post-war era saw the expansion of the welfare state, accompanied by increased government funding for social services. This benefited charities by providing a new source of funding, while also pushing them into more specialized fields where the government was not directly involved. With this new funding, charities were expected to operate more independently of religious affiliations, leading to the secularization of the charitable sector during this period.

Let’s explore a few illustrative examples of new charitable movements that emerged during this time. In terms of advocacy for those with disabilities, Community Living Ontario was created in 1953 and had key successes in making Canada’s education system more inclusive for all[10]. There were also organizations like Autism Canada, established in 1976 to support families and push for better services for individuals with autism.

In the environmental and conservation sector, Canada emerged as a global leader during a time when deforestation and pollution were major concerns. As Neil Young sang, “Look at mother nature on the run / in the nineteen seventies.” The Nature Conservancy of Canada, founded in 1962, has since conserved over 15 million hectares of natural spaces – equivalent to 3 NHL-sized rinks per minute[11]. Greenpeace, founded in Vancouver in 1971 in protest of wildlife destruction from US nuclear testing in Alaska, has grown into a global organization with tens of thousands of volunteers.

Other specialized charities addressed issues such as Indigenous advocacy. The Native Women’s Association of Canada, founded in 1974, provided political representation for Indigenous women and girls. In the realm of gay rights, The 519 was established in Toronto in 1975 as a community centre, later becoming a major service provider for LGBTQ+ individuals. Interestingly, the first Yuk Yuk’s comedy club opened in 1976 in the basement of The 519, featuring performances by comedians like Howie Mandel and Jim Carrey.

To support the growing international aid sector, Canada established key organizations like CARE Canada (founded in 1946 as part of the US-based CARE movement) and World Vision Canada (established in 1957 as part of the U.S.-based Christian charity movement). These organizations were instrumental in expanding Canada’s role in global disaster relief and international development.

Others included Oxfam Canada, established in 1963 and linked to the UK-based Oxfam, which focused on global poverty, injustice, and women’s rights. Oxfam importantly advocated for systemic change, rather than just direct aid. Amnesty International Canada, established in 1973, represented the Canadian chapter of the global Amnesty movement, which began in the UK in 1961. The movement originated with an article, The Forgotten Prisoners, which called for the protection of political prisoners, or “prisoners of conscience” and to investigate human rights abuses globally[12]. Amnesty International now has over 10 million members in over 170 countries.

These newly formed, primarily secular charities provided essential services that the government was not offering at the time. As the sector in Canada grew, government laws and regulations were developed to manage this expanding field.

The key piece of legislation that impacted the sector in Canada was the 1951 Income Tax Act. Initially, it introduced tax incentives for charitable donations, making giving more accessible and appealing to Canadians. However, oversight of these deductions was minimal until 1967, when Canada began requiring charities to register with the government. In the first year, 35,000 charities registered (today there are over 86,000)[13].

Another significant development was the introduction of the Disbursement Quota in 1976. This law required charities to spend a minimum percentage of their assets on charitable activities to prevent the hoarding of funds. Charities were mandated to spend 80% of the donations for which they issued official receipts in the previous year[14]. This requirement has since been significantly relaxed, allowing charities to focus more on building long-term, sustainable operations.

As we’ve explored, the post-war period marked a time of significant transformation in Canada’s international aid policies, domestic charitable landscape, and ethical frameworks governing those responses. These developments laid the foundation for the structure and dynamics of Canada’s modern charitable system, which we will delve into further in the next chapter.

[1] https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/foreign-aid

[2] https://www.international-alert.org/blogs/can-aid-be-an-instrument-of-soft-power/

[3] https://web-archive.oecd.org/temp/2024-06-17/63452-the07odagnitarget-ahistory.htm

[4] https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/net-oda.html

[5] https://hhr-atlas.ieg-mainz.de/articles/sasson-ethiopia#:~:text=The%20great%20famine%20of%201983,between%20400%2C000%20to%20500%2C000%20people.

[6] https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctvcj2s26

[7] https://publications.iom.int/books/rights-based-approach-programming

[8] https://www.unfpa.org/human-rights-based-approach

[9] https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/funding-financement/checklist-liste-controle.aspx?lang=eng

[10] https://communitylivingontario.ca/celebrating-seventy-years-of-community-living-part-one-how-the-community-living-movement-began/

[11] https://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/who-we-are/impact/by-the-numbers.html

[12] https://www.amnesty.org.uk/files/info_sheet_3.pdf