BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

CANADA'S BIASED "CHARITY" LAWS

The Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) was given power under the Income Tax Act to determine which organizations are to be designated as "charitable." This is a vitally important designation for organizations in raising money and encouraging foundation grants, since the issuing of tax receipts increases both the likelihood of donations and the amounts that are given. Charitable status also serves as a Good Housekeeping "Seal of Approval," indicating that the government thinks the organization is all right.

The current definition of the word "charity," however, is found nowhere in Canadian legislation, but, incredibly, is based on a 1601 English statute passed during the rein of Elizabeth I. This statute laid out the broad categories of charitable activity - namely, religion, relief of the poor, education and other purposes beneficial to the community. These categories have been further enlarged, however, by a briar patch of judges' rulings over the years.

Within these broad categories, some favoured organizations have acquired a questionable charitable tax-exempt status. How else does one explain why the for-profit abortion clinic, Everywoman's Health Centre in Vancouver, was granted tax-exempt status in 1993 on the grounds that it provides "services for the benefit of the community"? Yet two pro-life educational groups, Alliance for Life and Human Life International Canada, had their tax-exempt status withdrawn by CCRA in 1999, because of their alleged failure to fall within the "charitable" definition.

In February 2004, the CCRA handed down a precedent-setting ruling that granted tax-exempt status to the Humanist Association of Toronto. CCRA did concede that the Humanist Association was not a "religion" since its members did not "pray to a deity or supreme being," but concluded that the organization was "beneficial to the community as a whole." The Association holds lectures and performs non-religious weddings and funerals, etc., but, according to the last census, only 18% of Canadians are listed as atheists. This indicates that its charitable activities of marrying and burying are limited. Further, according to its spokesperson, Sheena Sharp, the Humanist Association speaks out publicly on stem-cell research and abortion, and, for example, in 1999, presented a petition in the House of Commons to erase God from the preamble in the Charter of Rights. These actions constitute political advocacy.

According to CCRA guidelines, an organization with tax-exempt status can donate no more than 10% of its resources to political activity, and must provide "non-partisan" advocacy - supposedly to provide information on both sides of an issue. The difference between advocacy and education is hard to spot. What constitutes political advocacy lies in the eyes of the beholder - the CCRA. On the one hand, for example, the tax-exempt pro-abortion and pro-homosexual organization, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, sends letters to MPs and Senators with impunity, and its tax-exempt status remains intact. However, pro-life groups who send letters to MPs and Senators are regarded as being involved in advocacy work, and, therefore, their tax-exempt status - such as occurred with Alliance for Life and Human Life International Canada - has been withdrawn. What a double standard.

Over the years, many complaints have been made about Planned Parenthood retaining its tax-exempt status despite its political activities. In its response to these complaints, CCRA has stated:

… if an organization merely presents its views on a specific issue for the consideration of elected or governmental officials, it will not be viewed as having engaged in political activity by that act alone.

Who knew? It is all terribly subjective. In effect, it means that if CCRA likes you, you're in - if it doesn't, you're out.

Pro-life groups which have considerably different moral values than the Humanist Association, are frequently denied tax-exempt status because they are "too political" in their activities. The CCRA's guidelines are not clear either as to what constitutes "political activity." A more precise definition would help keep charities from straying over the line, and would discourage government harassment via endless audits, should a charity's political activities displease those in power.

Meanwhile, CCRA is issuing other policy statements. In September 2003, it amended its guidelines to give charitable status to groups "promoting racial equality." The new policy includes a definition of "racial" and "cultural" groups. This broad definition allows homosexual groups to be included as a "minority racial" or "cultural" group, since their inclusion in these groups is now a part of our legal language, thanks to the courts. "Racial" and "cultural" groups are permitted, under the amended guidelines, to publish curriculum materials for "diversity training" and "educational outreach." This nicely dovetails with homosexual groups that already have access to schools for "outreach" and "education" purposes on "diversity" issues. With these new guidelines, homosexual groups will now be able to do so as "charitable" organizations, with the authority to issue tax receipts for donations to further assist them in carrying out their "charitable" work.

When REAL Women was established back in 1983, we were well aware of the control over tax-exempt charitable organizations that the government could have if it didn't like the organization's activities. The government does this by way of calling for endless audits, documentation, etc. Consequently, REAL Women never applied for a tax-exempt charitable status. This has freed our organization to speak and act as we think appropriate in dealing with our issues. It does result, however, in our receiving fewer donations since we are unable to issue tax receipts, but it is the price we must pay to speak out freely on the crucial issues of the day and to avoid government interference with our work.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS