Canadian Finance Committee Proposes Eliminating Religious Tax Exemption
John Lennon famously included religion, patriotism, and greed as the things that plague the human race, dividing us all. Jimmy Carter, adored posthumously as a humble, pious and spiritual man, included Lennon’s anthem in his home-going ceremony. I don’t think he or Lennon meant to condemn God. They bemoaned the arrogant certainty by which we know our God is the true God. The certainty that makes us hate and sometimes kill in God’s name.
Lennon’s famous sentiment might be what motivated the British Columbia Humanist Association to recommend that Canada stop subsidizing religion via tax exemption:
Given the global threats to religious freedom (and freedom from religion) and to reproductive freedoms, we are calling on the government to use Budget 2025 to advance human rights and the state’s duty of religious neutrality through our three recommendations:
. . .
2. That the government amend the Income Tax Act to create a statutory definition of a charity and that such a definition removes the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.
. . .
Last month, Canada’s Finance Committee adopted the recommendation. apparently without dissent. Recommendation 430 of the Finance Committee Report states: “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 is no substantive discussion but opponents credit the Humanists’ proposal. Some stakeholders worry that the lack of political opposition suggests the recommendation has a good chance of being enacted during the next legislative session beginning in March. Those stakeholders are urging constituents to lobby Parliament against the recommendation:
The finance minister is not obliged to adopt the recommendations for the spring budget, but the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada remains concerned about the issue, calling the fact that a parliamentary committee involving all major political parties had called for such changes “significant” and indicative that the parties supported the ideas.
“This change, if adopted, would have a far-reaching and devastating impact — on religious charities, the people they serve, and Canadian society. Just over 40% of Canada’s registered charities advance religion. This proposal would destabilize the charitable sector in Canada.”
Furthermore, the EFC opined that committee recommendations can serve as a trial balloon. “If a recommendation seems widely supported, or at least not opposed, it may encourage the government to move ahead with it,” the Evangelical body noted. “This is an important time to ensure MPs hear the concerns of Canadians about this proposal, now that the Finance Committee has put it on the table. It’s more effective to prevent these recommendations from being introduced in a bill than to ask for them to be removed once the bill has been introduced.”
Here is more of the rationale put forth by BCHA:
Presently, to be classified as a charity an organization must have as its purpose the relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion or other purposes beneficial to the community. The latter category has been slowly broadened by our courts; however, this is an onerous and inefficient undertaking. This perpetuates injustice against marginalized communities, including organizations representing BIPOC communities, by creating a barrier to their equal participation in charitable organizations.
Our particular concern remains with the head of “advancement of religion.” To qualify for this purpose, the CRA states a charity must include “an element of theistic worship, which means the worship of a deity or deities in the spiritual sense.” There is no similar provision to recognize the advancement of humanism or other nonreligious worldviews as a charitable activity. This undoubtedly breaches the state’s duty of religious neutrality by showing a preference toward theistic viewpoints over nonreligious ones. It relies on a presumed public benefit of faith. As an organization representing British Columbians with no religion, we contest that assumption.
This is not merely a theoretical concern. In 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the Church of Atheism of Central Canada could not qualify as a charitable religious organization, despite Justice Rivoalen conceding that “the requirement that the belief system have faith in a higher Supreme Being or entity and reverence of said Supreme Being is not always required when considering the meaning of ‘religion’. The appellant rightfully pointed to Buddhism as being a recognized religion that does not believe in a Supreme Being or any entity at all.” The Church of Atheism ultimately failed to demonstrate its belief system was “based on a particular and comprehensive system of doctrine and observances” and was thus denied its charitable status.
Yet it is unclear what the presence of such a system has to do with providing a public benefit. We therefore recommend that any such legislated definition of a charity end the discrimination faced by nontheistic organizations. The simplest way to do this is by removing advancement of religion as a charitable purpose in any definition. Doing so would eliminate the presumed public benefit of belief. Any organization that is presently registered as advancing religion would simply need to identify how their activities benefit broader Canadian society. That is, what benefit do they provide to those who do not necessarily agree with their orthodoxy or do not attend their services. A church that runs a soup kitchen or homeless shelter relieves poverty, so long as they do not discriminate in the provision of these services. This approach has the added benefit of removing the requirement that bureaucrats arbitrate what constitutes a religion when an organization applies for charitable status.
I am a believer, myself. But the Humanists have a point, I gotta say.
darryll k. jones