The resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Liberal Party leader and the prorogation of Parliament may have postponed a non-confidence vote and an immediate election, but has not averted the risk of certain organizations losing their charitable status on the basis of religious belief or disagreement with government policy, say experts speaking on behalf of stakeholders. 

The finance committee of the House of Commons has tabled a report which, if enshrined in law, could destabilize the entire charitable sector, according to legal experts of two major organizations.

The controversial recommendations from the committee are:

Advertisement

• Anti-abortion organizations should no longer be accorded charitable status;
• The Income Tax Act should be amended to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose.

“The issue is an important one,” Deina Warren, director of legal affairs with the Canadian Centre for Christian Charities (CCCC), told The Catholic Register. “The recommendation has been formally made by a House Committee and ought to be officially retracted, and advancing of religion as a charitable purpose should be positively affirmed by the government.” 

An umbrella organization with more than 3,200 member groups including churches, educational institutions, relief and development and pregnancy centres, CCCC represents the interests of Christian charities through committees, conferences and consultations with policy makers.

In an open letter to (then) Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland dated Nov. 15, CCCC called out the wording of the Prime Minister’s letter instructing her to introduce the amendments.  

“We understand that the Prime Minister’s mandate letter instructs you to introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act in order to ‘make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status,’ ” the letter stated.

It went on to challenge the proposed amendment and critiqued the wording of the recommendation that depicted anti-abortion organizations as “providing dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options,” while calling for cancelling their charitable status.

 “By singling out a subset of charities based on a position or beliefs about a particular issue, the proposal appears to be motivated solely by political considerations,” the letter stated.

Furthermore, it  pointed out that if an organization’s charitable status is removed simply because its views or beliefs are different from those of the government, it would threaten all charities, because their status would depend on government policies which could change each time a new government is elected. 

Advertisement

Such a move on partisan principles is not without precedent with this government. Early in its mandate it used the Canada Summer Jobs grants to require applicants declare themselves in support of abortion rights to receive funding. 

Two other organizations, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC, a national association of Evangelical Christians) and the Christian Legal Fellowship (a national association of Christian lawyers and law students), have written to the Minister of Finance, expressing their objections to the proposed amendments.

In a letter addressed to the current minister Dominic LeBlanc, EFC wrote: “Religious charities play a significant role within the charitable sector and the life of our country. Of the more than 73,000 charitable organizations registered with the CRA, more than 30,000 fall under the advance of religion, roughly 42 per cent of the charitable sector. Religious charities foster vibrant social networks, spark local volunteerism and foster community resiliency.”

Julia Beazley, director of public policy with EFC’s Centre of Faith and Public Life, emphasized that Canadians should be vigilant because if implemented the legislation would significantly impact all of these organizations, not to mention their beneficiaries

Beazley said that despite prorogation, the recommendations haven’t been scrapped.

“While all unfinished government business is terminated when Parliament is prorogued, the recommendations still stand,” she said. “The Minister isn’t obligated to adopt the committee’s recommendations, so that doesn’t necessarily mean we’ll see it in the next budget. But whether we see it adopted in the upcoming budget or not, it is significant that this recommendation has been put forward.”

The government could pick it up and turn it into legislation when prorogation ends, she warned.

“Committee recommendations can function 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. So now that the committee has put this on the table, it’s a good idea for Canadians to express concerns to their local MPs about it, to help ensure it doesn’t go ahead,” she added.

While it’s difficult to predict what exactly will happen when Parliament resumes its session on March 24, after the Liberals choose a replacement for Trudeau by March 9, any of the following scenarios could occur.

When it resumes, the government will begin a new session with a Speech from the Throne, which will be voted on. This speech lays out the government’s plans and priorities for the session. The major opposition parties have indicated they will bring down the government through a vote of non-confidence and trigger an election at the first opportunity.

Advertisement

If the House doesn’t support the speech, the government could fall then. The government will also need to introduce some spending measures without much delay, which could trigger a vote of non-confidence. If the government survives beyond these, a budget is typically tabled in March or April, and this is always a matter of confidence. 

“Whatever happens, we have asked the government not to adopt these recommendations, and are urging people ask their local MPs not to support this proposal,” Beazley said. “When an election is called, whether that’s sooner or later, this is a question people can ask of their candidates.”