Why Removing Charitable Status from Churches and Mosques is a Bad Idea

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance recently released a report packed with budget recommendations.

‍

One in particular, Recommendation 430, has raised serious concerns: it proposes changing the definition of "charity" in the Income Tax Act to remove the "advancement of religion" as an automatic charitable purpose.

‍

While seemingly straightforward, this seemingly simple change could have significant, widespread and negative, repercussions for Canadians. It's important to note, however, that due to the recent prorogation of Parliament, this proposal, along with all other pending parliamentary business, is currently off the table. This means it won't be considered in its current form and would need to be reintroduced in a future session.

‍

While this buys some time, it doesn't diminish the importance of understanding the potential impact of such a change. The fact that this recommendation was even put forward by a parliamentary committee is very troubling. It signals a potential shift in attitudes towards religious institutions and their role in Canadian society, suggesting that some members of Parliament are willing to reconsider the long-standing principles underpinning charitable status.

‍

This underlying sentiment remains, even if the specific proposal is temporarily stalled, and warrants careful attention as it could resurface in future debates. Here are three key reasons why this proposal, and the thinking behind it, is a bad idea:

‍

1. Erodes Freedom of Religion and Belief: Canada is a nation built on the fundamental principle of freedom of religion and belief. This includes the right to practice one's faith without undue interference. Removing the charitable status of religious organizations could be seen as a subtle, yet significant, erosion of this fundamental freedom. It creates a system where the government indirectly judges the validity of religious expression, potentially leading to discrimination and chilling religious activity. This isn't about giving religious groups a "free pass"; it's about ensuring the government remains neutral in matters of faith, as enshrined in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

‍

2. Impacts Vital Community Services: Many religious organizations provide crucial social services that benefit all Canadians, regardless of their religious beliefs. Food banks, homeless shelters, addiction support groups, and disaster relief efforts are often run or supported by faith-based charities. Altering their charitable status could jeopardize their funding, making it more difficult to deliver these essential services to the most vulnerable members of our society. This isn't about subsidizing religion; it's about recognizing the valuable work these organizations do in filling gaps in our social safety net. Weakening them ultimately hurts the communities they serve.

‍

3. Creates a Bureaucratic Nightmare: Redefining "charity" and requiring religious organizations to re-apply for charitable status based on other criteria opens a Pandora's Box of bureaucratic red tape. This would create a costly and time-consuming process for both the charities and the government. Imagine the administrative burden of evaluating the "worthiness" of every religious organization seeking charitable status. Who decides? What criteria are used? This process is not only inefficient but also risks politicizing charitable giving, potentially leading to arbitrary decisions and a chilling effect on philanthropic activity. It's a recipe for administrative headaches and potential abuse.

‍

While the stated intent behind Recommendation 430 might be to create a more "level playing field" the unintended consequences could be far-reaching and detrimental to Canadian society.

‍

It threatens religious freedom, jeopardizes vital community services, and creates unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles. For these reasons, this proposal, even in its currently stalled state (as the government is prorogued, with all legislation needing to be retabled), and the underlying sentiment it represents, deserves serious reconsideration.

‍