Finance Committee Recommends Amendments that Politicize Charitable Status

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:

… 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.

Recommendation 65 echoes changes proposed in October 2024. At that time, the Department of Finance announced that it would:

introduce legislation to amend the Income Tax Act and Income Tax Regulations 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.  

The disclosure of ‘non-services’ was deemed necessary because of the “misinformation” spread by pregnancy support services, which were also accused of “concealing the true nature of their services” and “restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women.”

We don’t have the details about whether Recommendation 65 will exactly mirror the October 2024 announcement, but given the similarities, it is a real possibility.

Recommendation, not Requirement

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.

But it could become part of a bill.

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.

Problem of Politicization

Unfortunately, politicizing charitable status – or proposals to this end – are frequent. From mandate letters to the sealing industry to proposing charity-specific scrutiny, charitable status seems an easy way to target groups, ideas, and activities that don’t align with a particular government priority or opinion.

The problems with this approach are rife. We have identified these problems elsewhere but they bear repeating.

 Politicization impacts ALL charities

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, “anti-abortion 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.

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 directed at a subset of charities because of their views, concerns over politically motivated constraints, and calling for a principles-based framework of regulation.

Mischaracterization Makes Poor Legislation

No category of charity should have the entirety of its organizations or work mischaracterized as causing “harm to clients” or be characterized as “misus[ing] charitable status.”

Even if we assume that the government is correct and some organizations are indeed misusing charitable status, 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, revocation or additional compliance requirements simply for the fact that they also grant scholarships.

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

Compliance Tools Already Exist

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.

Disappointing Development

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.

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.

We’re Here to Help

For an overview of our charitable status advocacy in recent years, see our blog post Staying Informed about Charitable Status and stay tuned for updates about Recommendation 65. If you have questions or would like support, please contact our Member Support Team by phone or email.