By Elbert King Paul

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.

From the Fraser Institute

By John Ibbitson

Although rubber has yet to meet road, Prime Minister Mark Carney is vowing to reverse many of the policy failures of previous administrations. His government plans to greatly increase defence spending, streamline the infrastructure approval process, and reduce provincial non-tariff barriers.

But while the government is right to focus on these measures, which aim to counter President Donald Trump’s tariff and annexationist threats, it’s easy to forget that Canada faced serious challenges long before The Donald arrived in the White House for his first term, let alone for his second.

First among these challenges is the crisis in health care. Six-and-a-half million Canadians lack a family doctor. Emergency room wait times can stretch on hour after hour. Prince Edward Island is the worst, with a median wait time of almost three hours before a patient first sees a physician. People in Ontario often have to wait months for an MRI scan. Some people travel to Buffalo where clinics offer to provide the service in a matter of days.

The median wait time between referral by a family doctor to treatment by a specialist in 2024 reached 30 weeks, the longest gap ever and more than three times the median wait in 1993, according to a study published by the Fraser Institute. In category after category, provincial health-care systems struggle to meet the standards they set for themselves.

If Carney really wanted to be remembered as a transformative prime minister, he would tackle this crisis by loosening the restrictions of the Canada Health Act.

The Act, and other laws and regulations banning user fees and extra billing, effectively prohibit provincial governments from permitting private health insurance to supplement public insurance for essential services. This has prevented the provinces from developing the sorts of private-sector safety valves used in developed countries around the world that also have universal health-care systems.

For instance, another report shows that Swiss citizens are able to choose among dozens of competing private-sector insurance plans that allow access to medically essential and publicly funded services. While there are copayments, public programs help lower-income patients to offset the costs.

In Australia, citizens are required to obtain private health insurance to supplement public coverage. That insurance, according to a federal government website, permits patients to receive “treatment in public or private hospitals as a private patient with the doctor of your choice” along with “health services that are not covered under Medicare such as physiotherapy, dental and optical.” Citizens who don’t obtain private insurance must pay a hefty Medicare Levy Surcharge of up to 1.5 per cent of taxable income. There are programs to offset the surcharge for low-income citizens.

In the Netherlands, to offer just one more example, the federal government also pays private health insurers to provide basic care, while allowing citizens who wish to pay for supplemental insurance.

Canadians pay a high price for the lack of private-sector insurance. According to the annual report comparing universal health-care countries published by the Fraser Institute, in 2023, 65.2 per cent of Canadians polled reported waiting more than one month for an appointment with a specialist compared to 51.9 per cent in Australia, 36.3 per cent in Switzerland and 35.7 per cent in the Netherlands.

The Commonwealth Fund, an U.S. non-profit health-care think-tank, ranked Canada seventh, in a study of how well 10 developed countries delivered health care. Australia ranked first.

A 2024 study ranked countries by how well they delivered various services. In that survey, the Netherlands came in 18th in the category of physicians per capita. Australia ranked seventh. Switzerland ranked sixth. Canada ranked 28th.

And yet, it terms of health-care spending as a share of GDP, Canada ranked fourth, Australia ninth and the Netherlands 13th. Switzerland came in at number two.

There is, in other words, little correlation between spending on health care and the health of the system. There is, however, strong evidence that countries offering universal public care—supplemented by private-sector alternatives—do better than Canada.

Mark Carney could go down in history as the prime minister who rescued Canada’s health-care system. Loosening the restrictions of the Canada Health Act to permit supplemental private plans for essential care in provinces that choose to adopt them, and reforming other troubling aspects of the Act, would set the stage for real innovation, experimentation and reform by the provinces.

Based on the evidence of jurisdictions from Sweden to Singapore, the first provinces to open the door to private insurance and related reforms would quickly see improvements in wait times and other metrics. Other provinces would likely soon follow.

John Ibbitson