Business
Carney’s Move to Strip Religious Charities Undermines Canada’s Foundations, Liberal Elder Warns
Faith and Freedom Are Constitutional Pillars — Religious Charity Flows From and Sustains Canada’s Foundation
I am a former partner of a national accounting firm and a registered Liberal who has served seven leaders of the Liberal Party, including four prime ministers. I am also a Christian actively involved in not-for-profit entities that “advance religion.”
I strongly oppose the new direction of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government, as outlined in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance report, Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2025 Budget, which recommends removing “advancement of religion” as a recognized charitable purpose.
Recommendation 430 advises the government “amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.”
As the Gospel of Matthew reminds us: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”
Regarding economic and social trends in Canada and across the world, it is clear that religious charities matter as much as ever. Feeding the hungry, sheltering the poor, visiting the sick, welcoming strangers — these are not merely spiritual ideals but measurable contributions to Canadian society.
There are four issues that are worthy of investigation related to this proposed recommendation from the Finance Committee.
First, as reported by the Fraser Institute on Dec. 10, 2024, Canadian generosity hit its lowest point in 20 years. Nationally, the percentage of Canadian tax filers donating to charity has fallen over the last decade from 22.4% in 2012 to 17.1% in 2022. The percentage of aggregate income donated to charity by Canadian tax filers has decreased from 0.55% in 2012 to 0.50% in 2022. This decline in generosity in Canada undoubtedly limits the ability of Canadian charities to improve the quality of life in their communities and beyond.
Second, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC) is a national association comprised of over 7,000 churches, as well as 32 post-secondary institutions and 86 ministry organizations. On March 10, 2025, the EFC made a submission to the federal Department of Finance noting that religious charities play a significant role within the charitable sector and the life of our country.
The EFC stated that of the 73,000 charitable organizations registered with the Canada Revenue Agency, more than 30,000 fall under the advancement of religion — roughly 42% of the charitable sector. Many religious traditions teach their adherents to care for their neighbours — to reach out in compassionate ways and care for those who are vulnerable.
As an example, Christian, Jewish and Muslim faith leaders stated in a 2016 Interfaith Statement on Palliative Care: “Our traditions instruct that there is meaning and purpose in supporting people at the end of life. Visiting those who are sick and caring for those who are dying are core tenets of our respective faiths and reflect our shared values as Canadians.” Read the EFC’s submission here.
The following table of religious composition in Canada in 2020 (Pew Research Center, June 9, 2025) demonstrates the mosaic of faith communities in Canada:
Christian – 20,350,000
Muslim – 1,870,000
Unaffiliated – 13,220,000
Hindu – 580,000
Buddhist – 660,000
Other religions – 1,140,000
Jews – 350,000
Total – 38,170,000
All major faith communities have expressed their vigorous opposition to the removal of the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose.
I, along with many Canadians, strongly assert that the proposed amendment to remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose undermines interfaith ministries. We also believe that the proposed recommendation is a politicization of charitable status for those who hold opinions and views that are different from the government.
Third, the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1 states: “Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.” It also states that everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion.
After consultation within my professional community, I assert that the proposed amendment to remove the privileged status of “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose is discriminatory. It fails to recognize Charter rights and the principles underlying the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
Fourth, Prime Minister Mark Carney has described, with perspective and humility, value-based leadership in his book Value(s): Building a Better World for All. He states that value-based leadership includes “perspective” and must “take in the periphery.”
The prime minister references how Pope Francis emphasized that we perceive a situation more accurately when we look at it from the standpoint of those on the edge rather than those in the center: “The state of the economy looks different to the unemployed. The political structure looks different to someone who is powerless, the community to the excluded or the security forces to the persecuted.”
The statement by Prime Minister Carney on the passing of Pope Francis, on April 21, 2025, concluded with the following remark: “Pope Francis leaves a spiritual and ethical legacy that will shape our collective conscience for generations to come. May we honour his memory by continuing to work for a world that reflects the solidarity, justice, and sustainability that he so powerfully embodied.”
In conclusion, the proposed amendment to revoke charitable status based on religious beliefs contravenes the Charter guarantees of freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression.
We are reminded of the following biblical saying, as well as the prime minister’s recent call to honour the life and teaching of Pope Francis: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
I urgently request that the government not follow the recommendation of the Finance Committee to remove “advancing religion” as a charitable purpose, but instead to recognize the relevance and benefits of religion to the charitable sector and Canadian public life and values.
In the words of Prime Minister Mark Carney: We need to be “building a better world for all” now.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Invite your friends and earn rewards
Business
The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.
Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.
|
When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”
They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.
The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.
It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.
The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.
None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.
Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.
The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.
The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.
Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.
Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.
Become a supporter here.
However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.
The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.
Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.
Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.
Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.
The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.
The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.
They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.
Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.
The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.
The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.
The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.
That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.
The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”
That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.
Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.
TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.
The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.
It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.
In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.
And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.
|
|
|
|
Reclaim The Net Needs Your
With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.
If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.
Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.
You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.
Please become a supporter today.
Thank you for your support.
|
Business
Loblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash
Yakk Stack
(Only 5 Days Left!) Claim Yours Before It’s GONE FOREVER
Hey, all.
Imagine this…you’re slicing into that fresh loaf from Loblaws or just making a Wonder-ful sammich, the one you’ve bought hundreds of times over the years, and suddenly… ka-ching!
A fat check lands in your mailbox.
Not from a lottery ticket, not from a side hustle – from the very store that’s been quietly owing you money for two decades of illegal price fixing.
Sound too good to be true?
It’s real.
It’s court-approved.
And right now, on December 7, 2025, you’ve got exactly 5 days to grab your share before the door slams shut. Don’t let this slip away – keep reading, feel that spark of possibility ignite, and let’s get you paid.
Back in 2001, you were probably juggling work, kids, or just surviving on that weekly grocery run. Little did you know, while you were reaching for the President’s Choice white bread or those golden rolls, Loblaws and their cronies were playing a sneaky game of price-fixing. They jacked up the cost of packaged bread across Canada – every loaf, every bun, every sneaky sandwich slice. For 20 years. From coast to coast to coast.
And now…the courts have spoken. $500 million in settlements to make it right. That’s not pocket change – that’s your money, recycled back into your life.
Given the number of people who will be throwing in a claim…this ain’t gunna be life-changing cash…but also, given the cost of food in Canada, it’s better than sweet fuck all, which you will receive by NOT doing this.
If you’re a Canadian resident (yep, that’s you, unless you’re in Quebec with your own sweet deal), and you’ve ever bought bread for your family – not for resale, just real life – between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2021… you’re in.
No receipts needed.
No fancy proofs.
Just you, confirming your story, and boom – eligible.
Quick check: Were you under 18 back then?
Or an exec at Loblaw?
Nah, skip it.
But for the rest of us everyday schleps…Jackpot.
Again…the clock’s ticking on this.
Claims opened on September 11, 2025, and slam shut on December 12, 2025.
That’s this Friday.
Payments roll out in 2026, 6-12 months later, straight to your bank or mailbox.
Here’s what you need to do…
- Breathe deep, click → HEREQuebec frens →HERE
- 10 second form that’s completed by your autofill…30 seconds off of a mobile device.
- Hit submit and wait for that sweet cash to hit your account.
Again…this won’t be life saving money and most certainly ain’t gunna hit your account before Christmas.
And before you go out an Griswald yourself into a depost on pool in the backyard…you may only end up with enough cash for the Jam-of-the-Month…the gift that truly does give, all year round…just be a little patient.
If you end up with a couple of backyard steaks in time for summer…
Some treats for the children or grandchildren…
Maybe just a donation to the foodbank…
This is what’s owed to you. Your neighbors. Friends. Family.
Take advantage!
-
Automotive2 days agoTrump Deals Biden’s EV Dreams A Death Blow
-
Automotive2 days agoCanada’s EV Mandate Is Running On Empty
-
Business1 day agoWhy Does Canada “Lead” the World in Funding Racist Indoctrination?
-
Business1 day agoLoblaws Owes Canadians Up to $500 Million in “Secret” Bread Cash
-
Dan McTeague1 day agoWill this deal actually build a pipeline in Canada?
-
Media1 day agoThey know they are lying, we know they are lying and they know we know but the lies continue
-
Censorship Industrial Complex23 hours agoUS Condemns EU Censorship Pressure, Defends X
-
Focal Points16 hours agoCommon Vaccines Linked to 38-50% Increased Risk of Dementia and Alzheimer’s



