I recently was provided with a copy of a letter that a secular humanist group received from the Charities Directorate of CRA. I asked if I could post the letter anonymously, and they agreed. Essentially the secular humanist group, I assume, had written to the Charities Directorate concerning the definition of religion and argued that it probably be broadened to allow for a group that does not necessarily require a belief in god.
Here is the letter from CRA:
June 13, 2023
[Redacted] board members,Thank you for contacting the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) Charities Directorate.
You expressed concern that the CRA’s current definition of “religion” is unduly discriminatory and should be updated. Also, you are of the view that updating the definition of religion would lead to a more consistent application of the rules relating to registration as a charity under the advancement of religion category.
The CRA does not regulate religion, determine the value or worth of particular belief systems, or define whether a belief system advances religion. The CRA assesses whether or not an organization is eligible for registration as a charity based on the requirements of the Income Tax Act and common law.
The courts have set out the common law criteria that a belief system must meet to be considered as advancing religion. As you pointed out, one of these requirements is that the belief system must have a theistic doctrine, meaning the worship of a deity or deities in the spiritual sense.
The belief system of an organization committed to secular humanism is unlikely to meet the theistic doctrine. However, if it is constituted and operated for exclusively charitable purposes other than the advancement of religion, it may nonetheless be eligible for registration as a charity. For example, provided the organization meets eligibility requirements at common law and under the Income Tax Act, it could be constituted for a charitable purpose to promote a moral or ethical belief system.
Please note, any change to the Income Tax Act, including modifying the common law definition of advancement of religion, falls under the purview of the Department of Finance.
We appreciate your comments. Feedback from the charitable sector and other stakeholders is instrumental in helping the CRA ensure that its educational tools, policies, and guidance products meet the needs of the charitable sector.
We hope this information assists in responding to your concerns.
Sincerely,
Sharmila Khare
Director General
Charities Directorate
Lots of interesting issues here. If you want a more fulsome note on CRA’s position on religion see our blog on CRA’s guidance on the advancement of religion. Unfortunately, the CRA guidance has still not been published.
For what it is worth, I think that the current financial benefits given to “religious” groups are discriminatory. However, sometimes in our society, we accept certain discrimination when there is perceived to be a corresponding benefit. The more we learn about how much damage some religious groups have done and how much effort is put into concealing that damage, it certainly makes one wonder whether this discrimination against non-religious groups is justified. The more that some religious groups deny that they are receiving special benefits and instead argue that they are consistently discriminated against, the more the public is going to feel that these special benefits are anachronistic. Some have asked, ‘All because something was considered charitable in 1601, why should it be charitable today?’ What I think is of little importance, but I would not be surprised if a judge, probably in Ontario, one day declares that the advantages given to religious groups are unconstitutional. It probably will not have that much impact on religious groups – other countries, such as Australia, don’t give charities focused on advancing religion the ability to issue tax receipts, etc. and they seem to be fine. My suggestion to religious groups is really take a hard look at your brethren or affiliates, try to stamp out bad behaviour and recognize and acknowledge the tremendous benefits received by religious groups that similar groups, even ones carrying out very similar activities, who don’t meet the definition of religion, do not receive.