SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL

PUBLISHED OCTOBER 9, 2025

Last month, the federal government announced it will be tabling this year’s budget on Nov. 4. As pundits across the country contemplate what the budget might include, there’s growing concern in the charitable sector around recommendations and legislation proposed last year.

The concerns are significant enough that a letter signed by 34 of Canada’s top charity lawyers was sent to Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne last month. The letter expresses concerns over potential changes that they say would “politicize the status of being a registered charity” in Canada.

Let me explain what’s going on.

The potential changes

The letter sent to Mr. Champagne addresses two recommendations made to the Department of Finance and one piece of legislation introduced on Oct. 31, 2024 (a Notice of Ways and Means Motion that died when Parliament was prorogued earlier this year, but which many are concerned may be reintroduced in the budget).

The first recommendation, put forward by the Senate committee on fisheries and oceans in May, 2024, dealt with the once-vibrant seal industry, which has been in decline owing to controversy, including accusations of misinformation about the harvesting of seals. The committee has recommended that the tax-exempt status of any charities considered to be disseminating mis- or disinformation be revoked.

The second recommendation addressed in the letter was put forward by the Senate committee on finance in its report tabled Dec. 13, 2024. The report suggests that the government should “no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.”

Opinion: What happens when giving is fuelled by hate? The rise of retributive philanthropy

As an aside, that report also suggested, in Recommendation 430 (which I wrote about in my article dated April 24, 2025), that the government should remove the “advancement of religion” as a charitable purpose. If Recommendation 430 is adopted, it would mean that places of worship such as churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other charities could lose their charitable status and be unable to issue donation receipts to supporters.

Finally, the letter to Mr. Champagne referred to the Notice of Ways and Means Motion, which imposes significant new disclosure requirements on registered charities that “provide services, advice or information in respect of the prevention, preservation or termination of pregnancy” or that “expressly or implicitly advertise” those services. In effect, any charity that advises on options other than abortion must prominently disclose this in all public communication. Failure to make this disclosure could result in revocation of their charitable status.

The problems

The letter to Mr. Champagne says: “In our view, these proposals politicize the status of being a registered charity under the Income Tax Act. To be clear, this letter does not support or oppose any particular substantive position on sealing, abortion, or other matters of public policy. Rather, our focus is on the importance of maintaining a consistent, neutral, and principles-based framework for the administration of the charitable sector, including the application of tax law.”

The letter emphasizes that it’s not necessary to make changes to the Income Tax Act or to revoke charitable status to address concerns about spreading of misinformation (in the case of the seal issue, for example). “These concerns can be effectively addressed through existing common law, legislative, and regulatory requirements that require registered charities to act honestly and in a reasonably unbiased manner in the provision of services to the general public.”

Tim Cestnick: Understanding why you donate leads to answers about how to give

As for the other potential changes, the letter goes on to say: “We are concerned that targeted legislative or regulatory changes, even when directed at causes about which there are strong and divergent views, may create precedents that undermine the overall fairness, impartiality, and stability of the regulatory regime for all registered charities.”

The lawyers who signed the letter to Mr. Champagne were being polite. It doesn’t really matter which side of the political fence you choose on these issues. I hope we can all agree that the principles of fairness, freedom of thought, belief and expression, government neutrality, protection of civil society, and pluralism should be upheld when considering the revocation of a charity’s status.

These potential changes to our charitable tax laws risk undermining these fundamental democratic principles. How? By imposing special reporting and disclaimer requirements on a narrow group of organizations based solely on their moral or philosophical views, or by revoking their already-vetted charitable status because they don’t subscribe to the ideological views of the government of the day. This approach politicizes the charitable sector and introduces “viewpoint discrimination” into what should be a neutral regulatory framework.

In our Canadian democracy, the government should not use tax policy to silence or marginalize lawful perspectives that differ from its own.

Tim Cestnick, FCPA, FCA, CPA(IL), CFP, TEP, is an author, and co-founder and CEO of Our Family Office Inc. He can be reached at tim@ourfamilyoffice.ca

Download a copy of this article in pdf here.