Nonprofits Keep Grants Despite Social Enterprise

Summary#

• This bill changes Quebec’s health and social services governance law. It says a community organization cannot be denied a government grant just because it runs a social economy project (a revenue‑generating activity with a social goal, like a thrift store, café, or home‑care co‑op).

• The goal is to keep mixed‑funding models (public grants plus earned income) from being penalized.

• Key changes:

  • Grant programs for community organizations in health and social services may not exclude an organization because it has a social economy project.
  • Organizations still have to meet all other eligibility rules and selection criteria.
  • Funders will need to adjust program guides and forms to remove any exclusion based on social economy activity.
  • The bill takes effect on the date it is officially approved.

What it means for you#

• Community organizations

  • You can apply for grants even if you operate a revenue‑generating project to support your mission.
  • This does not guarantee funding; you must still meet program goals, reporting rules, and quality standards.
  • You may need to show that your social economy project serves a clear community purpose and that you remain a non‑profit.
  • Keeping both grants and earned income could help stabilize your services and staff.

• People who use community services

  • You could see more stable services if organizations no longer drop revenue‑generating projects to stay eligible for grants.
  • In some areas, more groups may offer programs, giving people more choices.

• Local health and social service funders (e.g., CISSS/CIUSSS, Ministry)

  • You cannot use “has a social economy project” as a reason to exclude an applicant.
  • Other screening tools stay in place (need, impact, capacity, results). Workloads may rise if more groups apply.

• Donors and volunteers

  • Your support can work alongside public grants and earned income, which may make programs more resilient.

• Private businesses offering similar services

  • You may face competition from non‑profits that both sell services and receive public grants.

Expenses#

No publicly available information.

Proponents' View#

• It is fair: non‑profits should not be punished for trying to fund their mission through responsible business activities.
• It supports innovation and self‑financing, which can reduce pressure on public budgets over time.
• It improves service stability by allowing mixed funding, especially in areas with high needs.
• It aligns with Quebec’s social economy model, where co‑ops and non‑profits deliver community services.
• It removes a barrier that forced some groups to choose between grants and sustainable revenue.

Opponents' View#

• Public funds are limited; expanding eligibility could stretch money thinner and reduce average grant amounts.
• It may blur lines between non‑profits and businesses, leading to subsidies for activities that compete with private firms.
• Oversight could get harder: funders must check that business income truly supports a social mission, not general commercial growth.
• There is a risk of mission drift if groups chase business revenue to stay competitive for grants.
• Some worry it could encourage creating token “social” projects mainly to qualify for funding.