Photo: Peace Tower, Ottawa, Canada, by Barry W. Bussey

Commentary

In recent months, Canadian lawmakers and policymakers have openly questioned fundamental assumptions about the role of religion in our society, particularly regarding its recognition as a charitable purpose. The House of Commons finance committee’s proposal to eliminate or restrict religious charities from receiving tax benefits and official recognition as serving the public good is not just a bureaucratic or legal debate—it’s a challenge to the very fabric of our pluralistic and compassionate society.

It’s time for us to reaffirm why the advancement of religion should remain an integral part of our charitable landscape—both legally and morally.

The federal government will soon end its public consultations on the long overdue 2025 Budget. There are many voices objecting to the finance committee’s recommendation, and for good reason.

For centuries, religious organizations have played an essential role in shaping Canadian society. Under British common law, the advancement of religion has been recognized as serving a public benefit, contributing to societal stability, community building, and social support. Religious communities historically led the way in establishing hospitals, schools, and social programs long before the government stepped into these roles.

The legal foundation for recognizing religion as a charitable purpose is centuries old and was formally proclaimed in the 1601 Statute of Charitable Uses which set out specific activities beneficial to society. It established a framework that still influences charity law today. Later, the 1891 Pemsel Case reaffirmed those principles, outlining four key categories of charity:

• relief of poverty,
• advancement of education,
• advancement of religion, and
• other purposes benefiting the community.

Even to the present time, Canadian courts recognize that the advancement of religion remains a core and legitimate charitable purpose.

Why should we care? Because these religious organizations—churches, mosques, temples, and others—do much more than promote doctrines. Their work fosters social cohesion, provides vital services, and encourages community engagement. They are not merely about private worship but are institutions that serve the entire community.

The core legal principles that define what constitutes charitable status are straightforward and vital. First, activities must be voluntary—those involved should not receive private benefits. Second, the activities must provide a measurable public benefit—a tangible contribution to societal well-being. The Canada Revenue Agency describes the advancement of religion as promoting spiritual teachings, maintaining places of worship, and organizing religious instruction—activities that serve the public, often in ways that significantly benefit society.

However, recent proposals threaten to dismantle this centuries-old framework. The finance committee’s recommendation to remove the advancement of religion as a charitable purpose is often justified through a misconceived notion that government support or tax exemptions imply endorsement of particular religious beliefs, doctrines, or practices. This is a fundamental misunderstanding.

Government grants, licences, or legal recognition do not equate government support of specific religious views. They are about acknowledging the societal benefits these organizations provide. For example, receiving a driver’s licence or registering a business does not mean the government endorses your beliefs or political views by granting you those licences. Similarly, granting charitable status to a religious organization does not endorse its theology, its beliefs, and practices—it’s a recognition of its social service contributions to the community at large. Civic society is a must if we are to continue with a free and democratic society.

This misguided view, that government issuing a licence is de facto support of the organization’s ideology, is often exploited by activists who want to diminish religious influence in the public sphere. The ongoing push, including from certain political entities, to revoke the charitable status of pro-life groups and other religious charities assumes government must use such prerogatives as a means of punishing organizations whose beliefs and activities challenge contemporary ideological preferences. This attitude threatens the foundational principle that charities exist to serve societal needs.

The politicization of charitable status raises troubling implications. In the UK, reforms in 2006 led to the removal of the public benefit requirement for religious charities, sparking debates that continue today. Defining what constitutes “public benefit” when it comes to religion has become increasingly complex and contentious. Critics argue that, in a pluralistic society, religious organizations should not automatically have special privileges. But this view ignores the wider societal context.

Religious groups contribute significantly, not only in spiritual terms but also economically, socially, and culturally. According to research from initiatives like the Halo Project, run by the think tank CARDUS, shows that religious organizations generate economic benefits many times over their tax exemptions. Every dollar spent by religious congregations results in more than three dollars of economic activity in the community. This leverage—an estimated $18.2 billion nationwide—reflects the profound impact these organizations have on local and national economies.

Beyond numbers, the social benefits are even more compelling. Religious communities foster social stability by nurturing family bonds, reducing domestic violence, and lowering crime rates. Studies have demonstrated that religious participation correlates with healthier mental and physical health outcomes. For example, research from California’s Loma Linda University shows that members of religious communities often have longer life spans due to healthy lifestyle practices motivated by faith.

Religious charities also mobilize community support during crises, providing disaster relief, supporting homeless populations, visiting prisoners, and assisting the elderly. They run food banks, operate medical clinics, and provide aid to marginalized populations—services that often surpass what government programs alone can deliver.

Taking away a charitable purpose that served us well for hundreds of years is bound to have unintended consequences. I say it is not worth the risk.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Originally published at The Epoch Times August 26, 2025.