Budget Implications on Religious Organizations in Canada

Submitted to:

Department of Finance Canada
90 Elgin Street
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0G5

BY EMAIL: yourbudget-votrebudget@fin.gc.ca

Submitted by:

Barry W. Bussey, PhD.

President & CEO

First Freedoms Foundation

Suite 101, 294 Rink Street

Peterborough, Ontario

K9J 2K2

First Freedoms Foundation

Budget Implications on Religious Organizations in Canada

Summary

The Canadian government is urged to reject Recommendations 429 and 430 put forth by the House of Commons Finance Committee in its December 2024 Report. These recommendations, which propose to eliminate charitable status for pro-life organizations and to remove “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose under the Income Tax Act, are based on a misunderstanding of the essential role religion plays in society and would have detrimental consequences for Canadian communities and the nation’s commitment to pluralism.

Introduction

The First Freedoms Foundation came into being in November 2021 in response to the growing government pressure against the First Freedoms of Canadians. Justice Ivan Rand, in a 1953 Supreme Court of Canada case involving religious freedom in Quebec, described “freedom of speech, religion and the inviolability of the person” as “original freedoms which are at once the necessary attributes and modes of self-expression of human beings and the primary conditions of their community life within a legal order.” We refer to these “original freedoms” as “first freedoms” (hence our name) and it is our purpose to advocate for government respect of those freedoms for all Canadians.

Published Resource Directly on Point

Our President, Dr. Barry W. Bussey, edited The Status of Religion and the Public Benefit in Charity Law, a volume published by Anthem Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-78527-362-9 (hereinafter referred to as “the book”) that includes nine chapters of various scholars as they exposed the assumptions underlying the arguments against the historic legal presumption that religion is a public good. The arguments made by various groups that support the 429 and 430 recommendations are not convincing in light of the lived experience of the Canadian confederation since 1867.

This volume was written in anticipation that government would respond to the growing demands to deny religious charities charitable status based on political and ideological reasons. Public benefit of religious charities has long been recognized by the law and as former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes observed, “life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” Our experience in this country and indeed throughout the British Commonwealth is that religion provides a public benefit. It became an axiom that is now challenged due to ideological considerations rather than facts on the ground.

This brief will address our concerns, which were adequately addressed by the aforementioned book and is a resource recommended for the Government to review. Please note that the reference to the book does not mean that the authors are in anyway associated with First Freedoms Foundation (“FFF”). Indeed, the book was written long before and published almost two years before FFF came into existence. However, this book is determined by FFF to be an appropriate resource to address the concerns FFF has with the 429 and 430 Recommendations of the Finance Committee in December 2024.

• Freedom of Conscience and Expression: Prohibiting charitable status based on views regarding abortion would infringe upon the freedom of conscience and expression, rights that are fundamental. As highlighted in “Advancing Religion in a ‘Neutral’ State” by Derek B.M. Ross and Ian N. Sinke, in chapter six of the book. These authors point out that the Canadian Constitution recognizes the importance of protecting diverse viewpoints.
• Disagreement Is Not a Reason to Suppress: Ethical and moral views on difficult topics must be handled with care because “disagreement and discomfort with the views of others is unavoidable in a free and democratic society” as pointed out by several of the authors in the book. To deny the right to organize and speak to lawful aims – even if those aims are not popular with the government’s view is to create an unfair power dynamic.
• Historical and Societal Contributions: Religious organizations have historically played a vital role in Canada, establishing schools, universities, hospitals, and humanitarian aid organizations. The book chapter “The Public Benefit of ‘Advancing Religion’ as a Charitable Purpose: A Canadian Perspective” by Dr. John Pellowe reminds us that religious groups play important roles in “improving quality of life, civic engagement, social capital, and community well-being.”

In his chapter, Pellowe argues that supporting religion as a charitable purpose provides significant public benefits to Canada and its people, regardless of their personal beliefs. He categorizes these benefits into four main areas:

1. Improved Personal Outcomes: Religion encourages responsible choices, leading to fewer demands on state resources for things like the justice system, social support, and healthcare. This is due to stronger families, less unlawful behavior, and better mental/physical well-being among religious individuals.
2. Prosocial Attitudes and Behaviors: Religion fosters empathy, generosity, and social responsibility, which improve public civility and boost volunteerism in both religious and secular settings.
3. Tangible Community Benefits: Religious communities contribute significantly to social capital, build infrastructure, and enhance neighborhood viability. Pellowe cites the “Halo Effect” project by CARDUS demonstrating a substantial return on investment in communities where religious organizations are present. For every dollar a church spends in the community it is leveraged to $3.39 representing some $18.2 billion countrywide.
4. Tangible and Intangible Benefits for the Public at Large: Religion and religious freedom are foundational to liberal democracies. Religion promotes civic engagement, economic output, business ethics, and environmental responsibility.

Pellowe suggests that religion’s positive impact stems from religious commitment, which leads individuals to make responsible choices and cultivates prosocial attitudes and behaviors. Ultimately, he argues that removing religious communities from registered charitable status would have a significant negative impact on Canadian society.

• Economic Benefits: As stated in the book chapter, “Have a Little Faith: The Advancement of Religion and Public Benefit” by Juliet Chevalier-Watts, religious communities enhance financial stability, promote responsible behavior, and frequently contribute extensively to community aid. Such benefits extend to the whole population, irrespective of religious identity.
• Oversimplification and Reductionism: Raymond B. Chiu says in “Religion and Public Benefit: Social Scientific Perspectives and Critiques” that treating religion too narrowly results in arbitrary decisions. The rule should rather accept this multidimensional, multileveled, multivalent attribute and connection to humanity’s purpose for existing.
• “Charter Values” Doctrine

Dr. Bussey’s article, “Making Registered Charitable Status of Religious Organizations Subject to ‘Charter Values’,”  addresses the growing trend in Canada to assess religious organizations seeking or maintaining registered charitable status based on their compliance with “Charter values.”

Bussey argues that imposing “Charter values” as a condition for charitable status is problematic. It as an imposition of “correct” worldviews, driven by leading authoritative intellectuals and political leaders of Canada that effectively diminish the rights of religious organizations. He emphasizes that religious beliefs on Fundamental Human Life Issues (“FHLI), such as the definition of marriage, abortion, and the value of human life, have been the subject of religious thought for millennia. The suppression of groups who hold different views on these matters harms liberal democracy as it denies the reality of complex religious communities that individual citizens identify with.

Bussey warned that making registered charitable status contingent on compliance with “Charter values” was no longer a hypothetical. He correctly predicted,

….it is not so much a matter of speculating whether a political challenge against the charitable status of religious organizations will be made. It is a matter of when, and preparing for the inevitable.

His position was an accurate reading of the attacks against religious communities by activists including the BC Humanist Association. Indeed, it would appear that their opposition to religion as a charitable purpose in their brief to the Finance Committee in 2024 had an influence in the recommendation 430.

Bussey fears that, “Despite our history of respecting differences of opinion and religious practices, we appear to be headed toward state-coerced conformity. Tax policy is only one tool in the government arsenal to enforce compliance.” Such political interference does not bode well for Canadian society and will result in a decline in religious freedom.

• Religious Institutions Continue to Be Vital

Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham’s argument in her chapter, “Just Check the Box: Why Religious Institutions Still Make Canada a Better Place to Live and Flourish”, observes that despite increasing secularism and government pressure, religious institutions continue to be vital to Canada’s well-being, offering crucial services and values that benefit all Canadians.

Buckingham underscores religion’s long-standing role in Canadian history, emphasizing that many schools, hospitals, and humanitarian organizations were founded by religious groups. She identifies three functions: connecting people to the transcendent, providing rites of passage and community, and offering care and service to both their members and the wider society.

Buckingham raises concerns about secular policymakers and academics who argue that religious freedom should be limited to the private sphere and that religious organizations should comply with secular norms. She argues this violates religious freedom guarantees, restricts religion’s positive societal impact, and calls into question religious organizations’ charitable status.

The Trinity Western University (TWU) Law School Case is illustrative of the tensions between religious freedom and secular values, particularly regarding the Community Covenant’s stance on marriage. Buckingham also points to the attestation requirement for the Canada Summer Jobs program (which required organizations to agree with abortion rights) as another example of government overreach and ideological pressure on religious groups.

Buckingham concludes that it’s crucial for religious institutions to continue speaking in the public square, offering their perspectives on important social issues. Restricting their participation would impoverish Canadian society and limit freedom for all.

Dr. Frank Cranmer in his chapter, “Religion and Public Benefit in United Kingdom Charity Law”, reviews the experience in the United Kingdom after the Charities Act 2006 removed the presumption that the advancement of religion charitable purpose automatically constitutes a public benefit. Requiring religious charities to demonstrate public benefit in the UK is not without controversy.

Cranmer observes that because the UK Parliament did not define “public benefit” it has led to a lot of confusion and conflicting decisions as to what religious charities are granted charitable status. There is a tendency to confuse objects and outputs instead drawing a clear line of what it is meant to show public benefit.

Dr. Bernard Doherty’s chapter, “Back at the Bar: Charity Law, Public Benefit, and a Case of Legal Déjà Vu for the Exclusive Brethren,” provides a case study analysis of the Preston Down Trust (PDT) case involving the Exclusive Brethren and charity law in the UK. Doherty argues that the treatment of the Exclusive Brethren reveals broader issues in charity law reform, particularly as it relates to minority religious groups.

In analyzing the application of the Exclusive Brethren as to whether their doctrines and practices met the “public benefit” requirement they were rejected was based on concerns about the Brethren’s limited engagement with the wider community.

This led to a political controversy surrounding the decision and created pressure from parliamentarians and others about religious freedom. Eventually PDT was registered based on the Brethren’s agreement to a revised statement of doctrines and practices, especially regarding their engagement with the wider community.

As Dr. Doherty points out the charity law reform led to rising tensions between the religious communities and there is a real problem with the potential for state interference in religious practices.

• Flawed Concept of Secular Neutrality:

The strategy that treats the advancement of education, poverty relief, and community help as the only things a religious group must be measured by even when ‘religion’ is involved is flawed. It fails to consider that there is no public policy that is entirely neutral. Every public policy has a metaphysical dimension as to what is believed in the best interest of the country in the minds of the decision makers. 

Dr. Iain T. Benson’s chapter, “The Goal of Excluding Religion from the Idea of Public Benefit: Some Aspects of Neo-Secularist Strategies,” focuses on the broader cultural and philosophical context surrounding the debate about religion and public benefit. Contemporary culture, influenced by neo-secularist strategies, Benson observes, is actively working to marginalize religion in the public sphere, diminishing its role in shaping moral and ethical foundations of society.

Law has become ideology, said Benson, and there is a loss of respect for religion. What once was seen as self-evident (religion is essential to society’s moral compass) is now questioned. The public sphere is increasingly defined as “secular,” but this is often erroneously interpreted as “non-religious”.

Benson argues that a strictly secular public sphere excludes religious voices, leading to an incomplete and unfair representation of values. He stresses that terms like “secular” must not be equated with “non-religious” as even the “secular” involves belief. There must be an inclusive approach that acknowledges the value of religion and allows for its appropriate influence on public life. A society that denies space for religious communities and their charities will ultimately be impoverished.

Conclusion

Recommendations 429 and 430 of the House of Commons Finance Committee’s December 2024 Report are based upon a misinterpretation of religious groups’ contributions to Canadian society and a flawed conception of neutrality. Rejecting these recommendations is important to safeguarding freedom of expression, religion, and the diversity that enriches Canada. The government should adopt an approach which appreciates and supports the constructive role of religious communities, permitting them to proceed with offering aid while safeguarding everyone’s social rights and freedoms.

We thank-you for your willingness to review these materials.