The Standing Committee on Finance has once again recommended politicizing charitable status.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Its Report, Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance for the 2026 Budget<\/a><\/em>, encourages the government to:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to require greater transparency from anti-abortion pregnancy centres in order to mitigate harm to clients and prevent the misuse of charitable status.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Recommendation 65 echoes changes proposed in October 2024. At that time, the Department of Finance announced<\/a> that it would:<\/p>\n\n\n\n introduce legislation to amend the Income Tax Act<\/em> and Income Tax Regulations<\/em><\/a> to require registered charities that provide services, advice, or information in respect of the prevention, preservation, or termination of pregnancy to disclose where they do not provide specific services, including abortions or birth control.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The disclosure of \u2018non-services\u2019 was deemed necessary because of the \u201cmisinformation\u201d spread by pregnancy support services, which were also accused of \u201cconcealing the true nature of their services\u201d and \u201crestricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n We don\u2019t have the details about whether Recommendation 65 will exactly mirror the October 2024 announcement, but given the similarities, it is a real possibility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is important to note that the Recommendations are just that, recommendations. This Report is not legislation, it is not in force, it is not included in a bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But it could become part of a bill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So it also means that government decision-makers need to understand why this type of proposal is problematic. CCCC will again explain to Members of Parliament why politicizing charitable status is a problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Unfortunately, politicizing charitable status \u2013 or proposals to this end \u2013 are frequent. From mandate letters<\/a> to the sealing industry<\/a> to proposing charity-specific scrutiny<\/a>, charitable status seems an easy way to target groups, ideas, and activities that don\u2019t align with a particular government priority or opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The problems with this approach are rife. We have identified these problems elsewhere but they bear repeating.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CCCC has consistently taken the position<\/a> that politicizing charitable status is a problem for everyone. If an organization\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here, \u201canti-abortion pregnancy centres\u201d are singled out. But perhaps another government will take issue with environmental charities, or charities with certain views about Canada\u2019s seal harvest<\/a>, or charities that promote humanist ideals and policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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. Other stakeholders within the sector recognize this, expressing opposition to special rules<\/a> directed at a subset of charities because of their views, concerns over politically motivated constraints<\/a>, and calling for a principles-based framework<\/a> of regulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No category of charity should have the entirety of its organizations or work mischaracterized as causing \u201charm to clients\u201d or be characterized as \u201cmisus[ing] charitable status.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Even if<\/em> we assume that the government is correct and some organizations are indeed misusing charitable status, that still<\/em> does not justify targeting an entire category of charities. That approach is entirely at odds with how charities are regulated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, when the Sigma Chi Canadian Foundation was revoked<\/a> 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, revocation or additional compliance requirements simply for the fact that they also grant scholarships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This approach would wreak havoc on the charitable sector and underscores the problem of politicization.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further, CRA has a guidance document<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n To repeat conclusions we have drawn before, it is disappointing to see our federal government show disregard for Canadian charities by playing political games with charitable status through its budget recommendations. Because in this game, everyone loses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For an overview of our charitable status advocacy in recent years, see our blog post Staying Informed about Charitable Status<\/a> and stay tuned for updates about Recommendation 65. If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team<\/a> by phone or email<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Standing Committee on Finance has once again recommended politicizing charitable status. Recommendation 65 Its Report, Recommendations of the Standing Committee on Finance for the 2026 Budget, encourages the government to: \u2026 introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to require greater transparency from anti-abortion pregnancy centres in order to… More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":38601,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ts_fic_featured_image_caption":"Top portion of the peace tower with a Canadian flag atop is pictured in the right third of the image. CCCC name and logo pictured in the bottom left. In the top left is an enlarged, but partial series of colourful arcs from CCCC logo","footnotes":""},"categories":[137],"tags":[437,401,366,424],"series":[],"class_list":["post-39165","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-advocacy","tag-charitable-status","tag-christian-charities","tag-federal-government"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39165","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39165"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39165\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39167,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39165\/revisions\/39167"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38601"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39165"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39165"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39165"},{"taxonomy":"series","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/series?post=39165"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
Recommendation, not Requirement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Problem of Politicization<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\u00a0Politicization impacts ALL charities<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Mischaracterization Makes Poor Legislation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Compliance Tools Already Exist<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Disappointing Development<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
We\u2019re Here to Help<\/h2>\n\n\n\n