Politicizing Charitable Status is a Problem for Everyone

When charities are used as pawns in political games, everyone loses.

On October 29, the government announced proposed changes to the Income Tax Act (ITA) for “anti-choice organizations” that are “concealing the true nature of their services.” The government alleges that these organizations “are restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women” and “push women away from accessing the reproductive care of their choice.” The legislation would require these charities to meet significant disclosure requirements regarding activities they do not conduct. Charities that fail to “clearly and prominently provide the required transparency” could be revoked.

You might be tempted to think this proposal is just about abortion. But it’s not. This is about the federal government playing political games with the charitable sector. This is about the very future and stability of every single Canadian charity. This is about politicizing charitable status.

Politicizing Charitable Status for Some is a Problem for Everyone

CCCC has consistently taken the position that politicizing charitable status is a problem for everyone. If an organization’s charitable status is put at risk because its activities reflect views or sincerely held beliefs that are different than those of the government, all charities are at risk.

Here, crisis pregnancy centres are singled out. But perhaps another government will take issue with environmental charities, or charities with certain views about Canada’s seal harvest, or charities that promote humanist ideals and policies. Where ideological differences are significant, it would be easy for the government to suggest that these charities are concealing the true nature of their activities, that they suppress market access for (e.g.) seal-based products, or that they push people away from making a free choice about what to believe.

Politicizing charitable status destabilizes the entire charitable sector, making the future of any charity uncertain, its existence entirely dependent on the preferences and priorities of those in power.

Mischaracterization Makes Poor Legislation

No category of charity should have the entirety of its organizations or work mischaracterized as “spreading misinformation” or be labeled as “nefarious predators.”

Even if we assume that the government is correct and some organizations deliberately spread misinformation, that still does not justify targeting an entire category of charities. That approach is entirely at odds with how charities are regulated.

For example, when the Sigma Chi Canadian Foundation was revoked for several grounds including private benefit in its scholarship awards, the government did not then assume that all other foundations granting scholarships provided undue private benefit, nor were they mischaracterized in this way. Neither were they all subject to audits or revocation simply for the fact that they also grant scholarships.

This approach would wreak havoc on the charitable sector and underscores the problem of politicization.

Further, CRA has a guidance document explaining how it interprets and applies the law for charities that promote health. In other words, CRA already has tools to address legitimate compliance concerns for individual charities.

Reserve Revocation

Revocation is appropriately reserved for the most serious circumstances, such as deliberate or repeat non-compliance, and should always be substantiated by the facts of a particular charity’s operations, not generalizations or mere ideological disagreement.

Disappointing Development

It is disappointing to see our federal government to show disregard for Canadian charities by playing political games with charitable status. Because in this game, everyone loses.

Charities play a unique and indispensable role in Canadian society. They enrich Canada with diverse and far-reaching missions, services, and community impact. The stability of the sector must not be subject to the whims of political preference and strategy.

What is CCCC Doing?

CCCC has expressed similar concerns in regard to past federal government proposals about charitable status. CCCC is currently consulting with other stakeholders as we wait to review the actual text of the proposed amendments.

The Proposed Amendments

Based on a Department of Finance backgrounder, this is what the proposed legislation will include:

Disclosure Requirements

The legislation would require “any” registered charity whose purpose or main activity is to provide reproductive health services to disclose:

• If it does not provide abortion services
• If it does not provide information on abortion services
• If it does not provide the contact information for a provider of such services
• If it does not provide birth control services or a range of birth control services
• If it does not provide information on how to obtain a range of birth control services
• If it does not provide the contact information for a provider of a range of birth control services or providers that collectively provide the range of services

Birth control services means “relating to the provision or prescription of medications, devices or medical procedures that aid in the prevention of conception.”

Disclosure Placement

The above disclosure would be required in any form of public communication advertising the charity’s services, including:

• Bus ads
• Posters
• Billboards
• Social media posts
• Websites
• Any other communication aimed at the public

Penalty

If a charity fails to “clearly and prominently provide the required transparency,” its charitable registration could be revoked.

Effective Date

The government wants these changes to be effective for the 2025 taxation year.