Leslie Rosenblood
If the primary purpose of your organization is “advancement of religion,” and all your group does is proselytize, it is eligible for charitable status in Canada. Centre for Inquiry Canada documented that this single policy choice costs Canadians over $3.2 billion every year in its Cost of Religion in Canada reports.
Every year, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance publishes a report containing recommendations for the following year’s budget. The latest report, published in December 2024, contained Recommendation 430: “Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”
There are many reasons why this would be good public policy.
- Financial: In a time of high deficits, saving Canadian taxpayers over $3,000,000,000 annually is wise financially, and good politics.
- Philosophical: Canada is (or should be!) a secular nation, where the government is neutral in matters of religion, neither supporting nor suppressing religious expression. Giving a multi-billion-dollar subsidy to organizations that self-declare their primary purpose to be evangelizing is the government playing favourites.
- Protecting Canadian sovereignty: Canada did not decide the criteria the Canada Revenue Agency uses to determine which organizations are eligible to be recognized as charities. We inherited these rules from Britain, which made a decision over a century ago, based on the introduction to a law from over 400 years ago. Canada has never amended them. It’s well past time for Canadians to decide what constitutes a charity in Canada.
- Accuracy: Trying to convince others to view the world as you do is certainly permissible, but it’s hardly a charitable act. Such organizations should be non-profits, not charities.
To minimize disruption, the implementation could proceed in two phases.
- Announce a deadline (say, the end of 2025) after which organizations may no longer apply to become a charity with the primary purpose of “advancement of religion.”
- Give existing charities with a primary purpose of “advancement of religion” a deadline (say, the end of 2028) to either:
- Convert to a non-profit organization; or
- Declare an alternate primary purpose (advancement of education, alleviation of poverty, or other purposes beneficial to the community).
An administratively straightforward process should be created for religious charities to convert to a non-profit or designate an alternate primary purpose.
Canada has just taken the first step on the path to becoming a more fair, just, and secular country. It’s a long road from a Finance Standing Committee recommendation to implemented policy, and CFIC will continue to press for removal of “advancement of religion” as a charitable goal until this becomes a reality.
There is no better time than to have Canada utilize separation of church and state. We Canadians must and should not be subsidizing other peoples belief systems, It is a private mater.
Wow, excellent catch spotting this in a list of 462 recommendations!
Hopefully our colleagues at the federal lobby group Secular Connection will bring this up in future discussions with lawmakers. Although it’s a Liberal document, it’s significant that the idea made it into print in an official federal publication. One could argue that the idea is not politically partisan as it is an Income Tax Amendment addressing an anachronistic tax loophole issue. This should be of interest to any political party.
There is one governmental agency in Canada that still uses religious ritual on the job, and that is the military. Taxpayers fund the Forces, which include a form of state priesthood whose members are called upon by commanders to officiate at parades, ceremonies and social functions.
These ministers, who are almost all Christian, regularly appear in full robes and garb at the start of events such as parades and air shows, and the public in attendance is told to rise and remove head wear.
It is an overt and obvious violation of neutrality, as required by the Charter and the Supreme Court.
In addition, there are units in the military which annually march to a Christian church for a service, attendance at which is coerced through pleas to unit loyalty, peer pressure and in some cases, fear of consequences.
These are public employees, on the job and under the supervision of their bosses. We pay for it.
The money would be much better used for additional training and equipment.