Connect with us

Business

It’s time to supersize charitable tax credits, not political ones

Published

5 minute read

From the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

By Jay Goldberg

Are political parties more valuable than charities?

You’d be hard pressed to find a single Canadian that thinks so, but that’s how they’re treated under today’s tax system.

The way tax credits are handed out in Canada needs to be revamped. The system is broken, both federally and provincially. It’s time to stop giving big tax credits for political donations. Instead, let’s give tax breaks to folks when they donate to charity.

Consider this present-day scenario.

Last year, Sally donated $250 to the Conservative Party of Canada and another $250 to Save the Children. Jim donated $250 to the Ontario Liberals and another $250 to the Make a Wish Foundation.

When tax time came, the federal government let Sally use both her donations to lower her tax bill.

But one donation counted a lot more against Sally’s tax bill than the other. And it’s not the one that you might think.

For the Save the Children donation, Sally’s $250 donation netted a $44.50 credit towards her tax bill. The province added in another $15.90. That means she will get $60.40 back at tax time.

How about her political contribution?

Because it was a federal political party donation, Sally only received a federal tax credit. But the feds will give her back $187.50 when she files her taxes.

In other words, the amount Sally gets back from donating to a political party is three times as much as her donation to charity.

For those paying income tax, the tax credit situation for a $250 donation, both to charities and political parties, is identical at the provincial level.

Jim gets $60.40 back at tax time from his charitable donation and $187.50 from Queen’s Park for his provincial political donation.

That means the money Jim gets back from his provincial political donation, like Sally’s at the federal level, is three times larger than what he gets back for donating to charity.

On what sane planet should both the feds and Queen’s Park be giving out tax credits for political donations so much more generous than tax credits for making donations to charity?

Making a terminally ill child’s wishes come true should be valued more than helping politicians pay for political attack ads.

Canada’s provincial and federal governments should take funds that go toward tax credits for political donations and reallocate them to tax credits for charitable donations. Credits for political donations should be scrapped.

Tax credits exist to try to encourage behaviour. The whole idea behind it is that if you give folks a bit of a financial incentive to make a donation, they’ll be more likely to do so.

That makes sense when it comes to charities. It’s a worthy policy goal to have a tax credit in place to encourage Canadians to make donations to organizations that work to make a meaningful difference in people’s lives.

But why should taxpayers be incentivizing donations to political parties? Why encourage Canadians to shell out money that will end up paying for leaflets, lawn signs and attack ads?

Some try to justify the tax credit regime by arguing that because political parties can’t take corporate or union donations, they need help encouraging individuals to make donations.

But ask anyone on the street, and they’ll tell you it’s charitable donations, not political ones, that should be encouraged.

If political parties can’t raise as much money without the tax credit, they should just spend less money. No one is going to shed tears over seeing fewer attack ads on television.

The sole goal of a political party is to get themselves elected. Why should they get credits of up to 75 per cent while charitable donations get trivial treatment?

It’s time to stop treating political parties like charities on steroids. That means putting political donation tax credits on the chopping block. Instead, the same money can and should be used to supersize tax credits for charitable donations.

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

Business

We need our own ‘DOGE’ in 2025 to unleash Canadian economy

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

Canada has a regulation problem. Our economy is over-regulated and the regulatory load is growing. To reverse this trend, we need a deregulation agenda that will cut unnecessary red tape and government bloat, to free up the Canadian economy.

According to the latest “Red Tape” report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, government regulations cost Canadian businesses a staggering $38.8 billion in 2020. Together, businesses spent 731 million hours on regulatory compliance—that’s equal to nearly 375,000 fulltime jobs. Canada’s smallest businesses bear a disproportionately high burden of the cost, paying up to five times more for regulatory compliance per-employee than larger businesses. The smallest businesses pay $7,023 per employee annually to comply with government regulation while larger businesses pay $1,237 per employee.

Of course, the Trudeau government has enacted a vast swath of new regulations on large sectors of Canada’s economy—particularly the energy sector—in a quest to make Canada a “net-zero” greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter by 2050 (which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting emissions with activities such as planting trees).

For example, the government (via Bill C-69) introduced subjective criteria—including the “gender implications” of projects—into the evaluation process of energy projects. It established EV mandates requiring all new cars be electric vehicles by 2035. And the costs of the government’s new “Clean Electricity Regulations,” to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity, remain unknown, although provinces (including Alberta) that rely more on fossil fuels to generate electricity will surely be hardest hit.

Meanwhile in the United States, Donald Trump plans to put Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy in charge of the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which will act as a presidential advisory commission (not an official government department) for the second Trump administration.

“A drastic reduction in federal regulations provides sound industrial logic for mass head-count reductions across the federal bureaucracy,” the two wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal. “DOGE intends to work with embedded appointees in agencies to identify the minimum number of employees required at an agency for it to perform its constitutionally permissible and statutorily mandated functions. The number of federal employees to cut should be at least proportionate to the number of federal regulations that are nullified: Not only are fewer employees required to enforce fewer regulations, but the agency would produce fewer regulations once its scope of authority is properly limited.”

If Musk and Ramaswamy achieve these goals, the U.S. could leap far ahead of Canada in terms of regulatory efficiency, making Canada’s economy even less competitive than it is today.

That would be bad news for Canadians who are already falling behind. Between 2000 and 2023, Canada’s GDP per person (an indicator of incomes and living standards) lagged far behind the average among G7 countries. Business investment is also lagging. Between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) in Canada decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) while it increased by $3,418 (to $26,751) per worker in the U.S. And over-regulation is partly to blame.

For 2025, Canada needs a deregulatory agenda similar to DOGE that will allow Canadian workers and businesses to recover and thrive. And we know it can be done. During a deregulatory effort in British Columbia, which included a minister of deregulation appointed by the provincial government in 2001, there was a 37 per cent reduction in regulatory requirements in the province by 2004. The federal government should learn from B.C.’s success at slashing red tape, and reduce the burden of regulation across the entire Canadian economy.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Addictions

Annual cannabis survey reveals many positive trends — and some concerning ones

Published on

By Alexandra Keeler

On Christmas Eve, during his final year of high school, Justin Schneider’s friend handed him his first bowl of weed.

Schneider says he remembers it being an especially stressful evening and thinking, ‘Oh my God, they were lying to us about this.’

“Here I was this ‘good kid,’ staying away from alcohol and drugs, but this stuff is the best thing I’ve ever had,” he said. “But that reaction was brought on because it was the first time I’d ever taken any type of medication for anxiety.”

At first, Schneider used cannabis to cope with generalized anxiety, depression and insomnia. By his late twenties, he had become a heavy user.

In 2018, after more than 20 years of daily cannabis use, he was finally able to overcome his cannabis dependency with the help of a psychiatrist and addictions counselor.

Canadians’ relationship with cannabis has shifted dramatically since it was first legalized for non-medical use in 2018, a new survey shows.

The 2024 Canadian Cannabis Survey, released by Health Canada Dec. 6, reveals cannabis use has become increasingly normalized, driven by broader legal access and growing social acceptance. It also suggests legalization has achieved many of policymakers’ key goals.

But Schneider and others warn cannabis is not without its risks, and say better public education is required to address some of cannabis’ lesser known risks.

Our content is always free. Subscribe to get Break The Needle’s latest news and analysis, or donate to our journalism fund.

‘Some sketchy guy’

Health Canada’s annual survey, which collected responses from more than 1,600 Canadians aged 16 and older, reveals a thriving legal cannabis market in Canada.

The number of users purchasing cannabis through legal channels has nearly doubled since legalization, rising from 37 per cent in 2019 to 72 per cent today.

“I imagine if I was just starting out [with cannabis] now, I wouldn’t ever have to interact with some sketchy guy, and that would have been easier growing up,” said Jesse Cohen, a 34-year-old daily cannabis user from Montreal.

Cohen uses cannabis to unwind after work or while performing menial tasks at home. Today, he picks up his supply from a sleek, well-lit government-regulated dispensary. He feels this interaction is safer than buying it on the black market.

Cohen says he has also seen the quality and variety of products on the market improve — accompanied by an increase in price.

In the survey, just over one-quarter of all respondents said they used cannabis for non-medical purposes in the past year, up from 22 per cent in 2018. Among youth, that number was 41 per cent.

The number of youth using cannabis has remained stable since 2018, a finding that challenges some critics’ claims that legalization would lead to higher rates of youth consumption.

“For youth, I do think that the whole legalization de-stigmatized and took the risk out of it — it wasn’t a taboo subject or a taboo activity anymore — so there wasn’t the same draw,” said Ian Culbert, executive director of the Canadian Public Health Association, a non-profit that promotes public health.

“Let’s face it, youth experiment, and if it’s something your grandmother is doing, you don’t necessarily want to be doing it too.”

Another positive trend, Culbert says, is that cannabis users now seem to be better informed about the risks of driving while high.

Only 18 per cent of people who had used cannabis in the past year reported getting behind the wheel after cannabis use, down from 27 per cent in 2018.

Culbert interviewed cannabis users when cannabis was legalized. At that time, many said they thought their driving abilities improved when under the influence of cannabis.

“Of course, that’s just not the truth … They felt that their video game experience was so much better when they were consuming, therefore why wouldn’t driving a car be better?” Culbert said.

“I think [because of] education efforts, and the fact that police across the country have put in programs to identify and prosecute people who are driving impaired, that message has gotten through, and people are now equating it to drinking alcohol and driving.”

Public health campaigns also seem to have raised awareness of cannabis’ risks to physical health. Successive Health Canada cannabis surveys have shown a growing understanding of cannabis’ effects on lung health and youth brain development.

Schneider believes public health campaigns now need to focus more on the mental health risks associated with heavy cannabis use.

“I think there’s a responsibility to say that, for a small proportion of people, it can be very psychologically addictive and very, very risky to mental health.”

According to Health Canada, regular cannabis users can experience psychological and mild physical dependence, with withdrawal symptoms that include irritability, anxiety, upset stomach and disturbed sleep.

“You don’t actually have anxiety,” said Schneider about his own withdrawal symptoms. “But your brain creates it anyway, driving you to use cannabis to relieve it.”

Research also shows frequent use of high-THC cannabis is linked to an increased risk of psychosis, a mental condition marked by a disconnection from reality. Individuals with mental disorders or a family history of schizophrenia are at particular risk.

In the survey, only 70 per cent of respondents said they had enough reliable information to make informed decisions about cannabis use. And the number of respondents saying they have not seen any education campaigns or public health messages about cannabis has increased, from 24 per cent in 2019 to 50 per cent today.

Culbert says the revenue that the government generates from cannabis creates a disincentive for it to issue strong health warnings.

“There’s no coherence in our regulatory and legal frameworks with respect to health harms and the level of regulation,” he said.

“Governments are addicted to their sin taxes,” he said.


This article was produced through the Breaking Needles Fellowship Program, which provided a grant to Canadian Affairs, a digital media outlet, to fund journalism exploring addiction and crime in Canada. Articles produced through the Fellowship are co-published by Break The Needle and Canadian Affairs.

Our content is always free – but if you want to help us commission more high-quality journalism, consider getting a voluntary paid subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X