National
Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches
From LifeSiteNews
A Pre-Budget Consultations in Advance of the 2025 Budget report recommends no longer providing charitable status to anti-abortion organizations and amending the Income Tax Act to remove the privileged status of ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.
In 2022, I wrote an essay titled “What is coming next for Canadian churches?” In that essay, as well as in my recent book How We Got Here, I noted that as Canada shifted from being a post-Christian society to an increasingly anti-Christian one, Christian churches and organizations will inevitably lose tax-exempt or charitable status:
Churches and other religious institutions that refuse to bend the knee will likely lose their tax-exempt status at some point. Canadian LGBT activists have been making this case for years, and it is only a matter of time before the idea catches on or — more likely — a progressive politician decides that the time is right. I suspect that a key reason this has not yet been discussed is the awkward fact that many non-Christian institutions hold similar positions on marriage, sexuality, and abortion. That said, I have no doubt that a way to target churches specifically will be worked out. LGBT activists are already asking why the government is “rewarding bigotry” by awarding tax-exempt status to churches with a traditional view of sexuality, and LGBT activists have publicized sermons they disagree with as evidence of hatred. The churches and the state are on a collision course, and it isn’t hard to guess how this will end.
We may be seeing the first move in that direction. With the Christmas season upon us and Ottawa in chaos, few Canadians noticed the government’s publication of “Pre-Budget Consultations In Advance of the 2025 Budget,” the report of the Standing Committee on Finance. The report of annual pre-budget consultations included 462 recommendations that have been tabled and, according to the Standing Committee, will be taken into account by “the Minister of Finance in the development of the 2025 federal budget” (which, if Trudeau is still in power, will be Dominic LeBlanc).
Two recommendations included in that report are deeply concerning, and the Christian Legal Fellowship has written to both the Minister of Finance and the Finance Committee Chair Peter Fonseca to express that concern:
Recommendation 429: No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.
Recommendation 430: 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.
Those two recommendations, of course, were buried at the very end of the report. The first is unsurprising — Trudeau’s government is currently targeting crisis pregnancy centers that assist moms and babies in need, so it was inevitable that the government was eventually going to target local Right to Life organizations and other pro-life groups that still have charitable status. More brazen is the recommendation that the Income Tax Act be amended to eliminate “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose — this could, according to the Christian Legal Fellowship, “have a devastating impact, not only on the 32,000+ religious charities in this country, but the millions of Canadians they serve.” CLF urged the government “to reject any such approach and clarify exactly what is being contemplated.” As CLF noted in their letter:
Religious charities account for nearly 40% of all charities in Canada, including churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, and other faith communities, operating programs such as soup kitchens, shelters, refugee homes, and food banks. They provide indispensable social, economic, and spiritual support, filling a significant gap in our communities and meeting the needs of millions of Canadians.
Suggesting that such organizations must do something other than “advance religion” to be considered charitable ignores the reality that these services are themselves the very manifestation of religious beliefs, inherent to and inextricable from the charity’s religion itself. It also betrays a long-standing recognition of the intrinsic goods provided by religious communities, who offer people hope, encouragement, and belonging in ways that simply cannot be quantified or replaced. Ultimately, any efforts to substitute their much-needed services would place an extraordinary strain on all levels of government.
I have no doubt that the Trudeau government is willing to purse these recommendations regardless; these plans, however, may be thwarted by the next election. Trudeau no doubt remembers the Canada Summer Jobs Program fight, when his government insisted that recipients sign an attestation of support for abortion and LGBT ideology and suddenly found themselves facing angry imams, rabbis, and other religious leaders instead of just the priests and pastors they’d assumed would be impacted. It seems unlikely that going after religious charities is a fight Trudeau wants now.
Trudeau will, however, be campaigning on abortion — it’s the wedge issue he returns to again and again as the PMO increasingly resembles Custer’s Last Stand. Thus, Recommendation 429 may be taken up sooner rather than later. Either way, these two recommendations are essentially a statement of purpose. The Liberals may not get to them just now, but be assured that this is what progressives intend to do just as soon as they get the chance.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By J.D. Foster
Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Steps Trump Could Take To Get NATO Free Riders Off America’s Back
In thinking about NATO, one has to ask: “How stupid do they think we are?”
The “they,” of course, are many of the other NATO members, and the answer is they think we are as stupid as we have been for the last quarter century. As President-elect Donald Trump observed in his NBC interview, NATO “takes advantage of the U.S.”
Canada is among the “they.” In November, The Economist reported that Canada spends about 1.3% of GDP on defense. The ridiculously low NATO minimum is 2%. Not to worry, though, Premier Justin Trudeau promises Canada will hit 2% — by 2032.
A quarter of NATO’s 32 members fall short of the 2% minimum. The con goes like this: We are short now, but we will get there eventually. Trust us, wink, wink.
The United States has put up with this nonsense from some members since the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is how stupid we have been.
Trump once threatened to pull the United States out of NATO, then he suggested the United States might not come to the defense of a NATO member like Canada. Naturally, free-riding NATO members grumbled.
In another context, former Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore famously outlined the first step in how the United States should approach NATO: Don’t get stuck on stupid.
NATO is a coalition of mutual defense. Members who contribute little to the mutual defense are useless. Any country not spending its 2% of GDP on defense by mid-year 2025 should see its membership suspended immediately.
What does suspended mean? Consequences. Its military should not be permitted to participate in any NATO planning or exercises. And its offices at NATO headquarters and all other NATO facilities should be shuttered and its citizens banned until such time as their membership returns to good standing. And, of course, the famous Article V assuring mutual defense would be suspended.
Further, Trump should insist on these measures and order that unless they are carried out the United States will not participate in NATO. If Canada is allowed entry to the Brussels headquarters, then United States representatives would stay out.
Nor should he stop there. The 2% threshold would be fine in a world at peace with no enemies lurking. That does not describe the world today. Trump should declare the threshold for avoiding membership suspension will be 2.5% in 2026 and 3% by 2028 – not 2030 as some suggest.
The purpose is not to destroy NATO, but to force NATO to be relevant. America needs strong defense partners who pull their weight, not defense welfare queens. If NATO’s members cannot abide by these terms, then it is time to move on and let NATO go the way of the League of Nations.
Trump may need to take the lead in creating a new coalition of those willing to defend Western values. As he did in rewriting the former U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, it may be time to replace a defective arrangement with a much better one.
This still leaves the problem of free riders. Take Belgium, for example, another security free rider. Suppose a new defense coalition arises including the United States and Poland and others bordering Russia. Hiding behind the coalition’s protection, Belgium could just quit all defense spending to focus on making chocolates.
This won’t do. The members of the new defense coalition must also agree to impose a tariff regime on the security free riders to help pay for the defense provided.
The best solution is for NATO to rise to our mutual security challenges. If NATO can’t do this, then other arrangements will be needed. But it is time to move on from stupid.
J.D. Foster is the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and former chief economist and senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He now resides in relative freedom in the hills of Idaho.
From the Fraser Institute
By Grady Munro, Milagros Palacios and Jason Clemens
The sudden resignation of federal finance minister (and deputy prime minister) Chrystia Freeland, hours before the government was scheduled to release its fall economic update has thrown an already badly underperforming government into crisis. In her letter of resignation, Freeland criticized the government, and indirectly the prime minister, for “costly political gimmicks” and irresponsible handling of the country’s finances and economy during a period of great uncertainty.
But while Freeland’s criticism of recent poorly-designed federal policies is valid, her resignation, in some ways, tries to reshape her history into that of a more responsible finance minister. That is, however, ultimately an empirical question. If we contrast the performance of the last four long-serving (more than three years) federal finance ministers—Paul Martin (Liberal), Jim Flaherty (Conservative), Bill Morneau (Liberal) and Freeland (Liberal)—it’s clear that neither Freeland nor her predecessor (Morneau) were successful finance ministers in terms of imposing fiscal discipline or overseeing a strong Canadian economy.
Let’s first consider the most basic measure of economic performance, growth in per-person gross domestic product (GDP), adjusted for inflation. This is a broad measure of living standards that gauges the value of all goods and services produced in the economy adjusted for the population and inflation. The chart below shows the average annual growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP over the course of each finance minister’s term. (Adjustments are made to reflect the effects of temporary recessions or unique aspects of each minister’s tenure to make it easier to compare the performances of each finance minister.)
Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0222-01; 2024 Fall Economic Statement
By far Paul Martin oversaw the strongest growth in per-person GDP, with an average annual increase of 2.4 per cent. Over his entire tenure spanning a decade, living standards rose more than 25 per cent.
The average annual increase in per-person GDP under Flaherty was 0.6 per cent, although that includes the financial recession of 2008-09. If we adjust the data for the recession, average annual growth in per-person GDP was 1.4 per cent, still below Martin but more than double the rate if the effects of the recession are included.
During Bill Morneau’s term, average annual growth in per-person GDP was -0.5 per cent, although this includes the effects of the COVID recession. If we adjust to exclude 2020, Morneau averaged a 0.7 per cent annual increase—half the adjusted average annual growth rate under Flaherty.
Finally, Chrystia Freeland averaged annual growth in per-person GDP of -0.3 per cent during her tenure. And while the first 18 or so months of her time as finance minister, from the summer of 2020 through 2021, were affected by the COVID recession and the subsequent rebound, the average annual rate of per-person GDP growth was -0.2 per cent during her final three years. Consequently, at the time of her resignation from cabinet in 2024, Canadian living standards are projected to be 1.8 per cent lower than they were in 2019.
Let’s now consider some basic fiscal measures.
Martin is by far the strongest performing finance minister across almost every metric. Faced with a looming fiscal crisis brought about by decades of deficits and debt accumulation, he reduced spending both in nominal terms and as a share of the economy. For example, after adjusting for inflation, per-person spending on federal programs dropped by 5.9 per cent during his tenure as finance minister (see chart below). As a result, the federal government balanced the budget and lowered the national debt, ultimately freeing up resources via lower interest costs for personal and business tax relief that made the country more competitive and improved incentives for entrepreneurs, businessowners, investors and workers.
*Note: Freeland’s term began in 2020, but given the influence of COVID, 2019 is utilized as the baseline for the overall change in spending. Sources: Statistics Canada Table 17-10-0005-01, Table 36-10-0130-01; Fiscal Reference Tables 2024; 2024 Fall Economic Statement
Flaherty’s record as finance minister is mixed, in part due to the recession of 2008-09. Per-person program spending (inflation adjusted) increased by 11.6 per cent, and there was a slight (0.6 percentage point) increase in spending as a share of the economy. Debt also increased as a share of the economy, although again, much of the borrowing during Flaherty’s tenure was linked with the 2008-09 recession. Flaherty did implement tax relief, including extending the business income tax cuts started under Martin, which made Canada more competitive in attracting investment and fostering entrepreneurship.
Both Morneau and Freeland recorded much worse financial performances than Flaherty and Martin. Morneau increased per-person spending on programs (inflation adjusted) by 37.1 per cent after removing 2020 COVID-related expenditures. Even if a more generous assessment is used, specifically comparing spending in 2019 (prior to the effects of the pandemic and recession) per-person spending still increased by 18.1 per cent compared to the beginning of his tenure.
In his five years, Morneau oversaw an increase in total federal debt of more than $575 billion, some of which was linked with COVID spending in 2020. However, as multiple analyses have concluded, the Trudeau government spent more and accumulated more debt during COVID than most comparable industrialized countries, with little or nothing to show for it in terms of economic growth or better health performance. Simply put, had Morneau exercised more restraint, Canada would have accumulated less debt and likely performed better economically.
Freeland’s tenure as finance minister is the shortest of the four ministers examined. It’s nonetheless equally as unimpressive as that of her Trudeau government predecessor (Morneau). If we use baseline spending from 2019 to adjust for the spike in spending in 2020 when she was appointed finance minister, per-person spending on programs by the federal government (inflation adjusted) during Freeland’s term increased by 4.1 per cent. Total federal debt is expected to increase from $1.68 trillion when Freeland took over to an estimated $2.2 trillion this year, despite the absence of a recession or any other event that would impair federal finances since the end of COVID in 2021. For some perspective, the $470.8 billion in debt accumulated under Freeland is more than double the $220.3 billion accumulated under Morneau prior to COVID. And there’s an immediate cost to that debt in the form of $53.7 billion in expected federal debt interest costs this year. These are taxpayer resources unavailable for actual services such as health care.
Freeland’s resignation from cabinet sent shock waves throughout the country, perhaps relieving her of responsibility for the Trudeau government’s latest poorly-designed fiscal policies. However, cabinet ministers bear responsibility for the performance of their ministries—meaning Freeland must be held accountable for her previous budgets and the fiscal and economic performance of the government during her tenure. Compared to previous long-serving finances ministers, it’s clear that Chrystia Freeland, and her Trudeau predecessor Bill Morneau, failed to shepherd a strong economy or maintain responsible and prudent finances.
The CBC gets $1.4 billion per year, but the Trudeau government wants to give it more
Nearly half of non-terminally ill Canadians who choose euthanasia say they are lonely
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
Canada needs to get serious about securing its border
-
National22 hours ago
Conservatives say Singh won’t help topple Trudeau government until after he qualifies for pension in late February
-
Daily Caller1 day ago‘Brought This On Ourselves’: Dem Predicts Massive Backlash After Party Leaders Exposed For ‘Lying’ About Biden Health
-
Alberta2 days agoFord and Trudeau are playing checkers. Trump and Smith are playing chess
-
National1 day agoWhen is the election!? Singh finally commits and Poilievre asks Governor General to step in
-
National1 day agoCanadian town appeals ruling that forces them to pay LGBT group over ‘pride’ flag dispute
-
Daily Caller10 hours agoLNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy
-
Alberta1 day agoFree Alberta Strategy trying to force Trudeau to release the pension calculation
-
Business2 days agoSenator Introduces Bill To Send One-Third Of Federal Workforce Packing Out Of DC