Connect with us

National

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

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.

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in the National Post, National Review, First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, the Jewish Independent, the Hamilton Spectator, Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author of The Culture War, Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion, Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement, Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author of A Guide to Discussing Assisted Suicide with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

2025 Federal Election

Carney’s budget means more debt than Trudeau’s

Published on

By Franco Terrazzano

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is criticizing Liberal Party Leader Mark Carney’s budget plan for adding another $225 billion to the debt.

“Carney plans to borrow even more money than the Trudeau government planned to borrow,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Carney claims he’s not like Trudeau and when it comes to the debt, here’s the truth: Carney’s plan is billions of dollars worse than Trudeau’s plan.”

Today, Carney released the Liberal Party’s “fiscal and costing plan.” Carney’s plan projects the debt to increase consistently.

Here is the breakdown of Carney’s annual budget deficits:

  • 2025-26: $62 billion
  • 2026-27: $60 billion
  • 2027-28: $55 billion
  • 2028-29: $48 billion

Over the next four years, Carney plans to add an extra $225 billion to the debt. For comparison, the Trudeau government planned on increasing the debt by $131 billion over those years, according to the most recent Fall Economic Statement.

Carney’s additional debt means he will waste an extra $5.6 billion on debt interest charges over the next four years. Debt interest charges already cost taxpayers $54 billion every year – more than $1 billion every week.

“Carney’s debt binge means he will waste $1 billion more every year on debt interest charges,” Terrazzano said. “Carney’s plan isn’t credible and it’s even more irresponsible than the Trudeau plan.

“After years of runaway spending Canadians need a government that will cut spending and stop wasting so much money on debt interest charges.”

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Campaign 2025 : The Liberal Costed Platform – Taxpayer Funded Fiction

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight Dan Knight's avatar Dan Knight

Carney is trying to redefine the deficit by splitting it into two categories: “operating” and “capital”—a little trick borrowed from UK public finance to confuse voters and dodge political accountability. It’s not something Canada has ever used in federal budget reporting, and there’s a reason for that: it’s misleading by design.

Mark Carney, the unelected banker-turned-savior of the Liberal Party, stood on a stage at Durham College on April 19 and did what professional economic grifters do best—he smiled politely, gestured at some numbers, and attempted to sell Canadians on a $130 billion illusion.

He called it a “costed platform.” What it really was, was a pitch deck for national decline—a warmed-over slab of recycled Trudeauism, backed by deficit delusion and framed as “bold leadership.”

And yes, the numbers are real. Terrifyingly real.

The Liberal platform promises $130 billion in new spending over four years, while running deficits of $62.3 billion this year, $59.9 billion next year, and still sitting at $48 billion in the red by 2028. To balance all of this out? A magical $28 billion in “unspecified cuts.” Not outlined. Not itemized. Just floated in the air like a promise from a door-to-door vacuum salesman.

Carney, in his perfectly rehearsed banker tone, assures us it’s not spending. No, it’s “investment.” Which is hilarious, because that’s exactly what Justin Trudeau said when he kicked off a decade of reckless spending, capital flight, and housing inflation. Carney has simply pulled off the Liberal magic trick of rebranding debt as growth.

But this isn’t just fiscal mismanagement. This is coordinated, high-level dishonesty.

Let’s be clear: Mark Carney is not new to any of this. He isn’t some white knight riding in to clean up Trudeau’s mess. He is the mess. He was Trudeau’s economic consigliere. He sat in the backrooms when they passed Bill C-69, which throttled Canada’s energy sector. He championed ESG, oversaw the implosion of GFANZ (his climate finance alliance), and helped drive $500 billion in investment out of this country.

Now he’s back—wearing a new title, making the same promises, using the same playbook. Only this time, he’s brought a spreadsheet.

In one breath, Carney says we need to “diversify trade.” In the next, he’s counting on $20 billion in one-time countertariff revenues to prop up his platform. In one paragraph, he says Canada will be “fiscally responsible.” In the next, he admits the deficit will nearly double this year. He claims he’ll spend 2% of GDP on defense—but not until 2029, because, of course, there’s no urgency when you’re protected by the American military umbrella you secretly resent.

And his housing plan? If you thought things couldn’t get worse than Justin Trudeau’s housing disaster, buckle up. Carney’s solution is modular housing—yes, government-subsidized, prefabricated micro-boxes dropped onto federally controlled land.

Mark Carney will never live in modular housing. His children will never live in modular housing. But for you, the taxpayer? That’s the future he envisions—managed housing, managed economy, managed speech, managed life.

He’s not here to lift Canadians up. He’s here to lock them down—into a permanent, bureaucratically engineered middle class, dependent on state subsidies and grateful for whatever dignity Ottawa hasn’t yet taxed away.

And when asked how he’ll find the $28 billion in cuts needed to make this plan remotely plausible, his answer was priceless:

“Technology, attrition, and a review of consultant contracts.”

Translation: “We don’t know.”

And here’s where the grift goes full throttle—the accounting scam.

Carney is trying to redefine the deficit by splitting it into two categories: “operating” and “capital”—a little trick borrowed from UK public finance to confuse voters and dodge political accountability. It’s not something Canada has ever used in federal budget reporting, and there’s a reason for that: it’s misleading by design.

Here’s how it works: Carney claims that by 2028, the government will run an “operating surplus.” Sounds responsible, right? Like the books are balanced?

Wrong.

Because even while he’s claiming an “operating surplus,” the federal government will still be running a $48 billion deficit overall. That’s real debt—borrowed money the country doesn’t have.

So how does he square the circle?

Simple: he relabels infrastructure and program spending as “capital investment”, pushes it off to the side, and tells you the main budget is in good shape.

But guess what?

You still owe the money.
The debt still grows.
And interest payments still stack up.

It’s like maxing out your credit card, then saying “no problem—I only overspent on long-term purchases, not day-to-day expenses.”

Try that line with your bank. Let me know how it goes.

This isn’t honest budgeting. It’s spreadsheet manipulation by a guy who knows how to massage the optics while the house burns down.

And let’s not forget who we’re talking about here.

This is the man who moved his financial headquarters to New York while lecturing Canadians about economic sovereignty.

This is the guy with a Cayman Islands tax haven, who built his fortune offshore and now wants to manage your budget while shielding his own.

This is the architect of GFANZ—the so-called climate finance alliance—that imploded under his leadership. The same alliance that saw JPMorgan, Citigroup, and the Big Six Canadian banks bail because Carney couldn’t keep the cartel together without running afoul of antitrust laws.

This is the same man mentioned in Marco Mendicino’s Emergencies Act texts—the man who said, Move the tanks on the protesters.

That’s right.

He wasn’t calling for dialogue. He wasn’t calling for democracy. He was calling for force—on peaceful Canadians exercising their rights. That’s who this is.

So let’s drop the fantasy.

Mark Carney isn’t here to save you.

Continue Reading

Trending

X