Public funding should be religion-neutral
Discrimination on basis of beliefs is a violation of rights, Derek Ross says.
Disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit because of their religious beliefs is unacceptable in a liberal democracy. Yet that is the effect of two recent government initiatives in Canada.
Better known for its provisions concerning face coverings, Quebec’s Bill 62 also discriminates against religious childcare programs. Private childcare providers are eligible for public subsidies, but those which teach religious beliefs or practices are now disqualified.
Similarly, religious charitable organizations unable to attest that they “respect” certain values identified by the federal government — including access to abortion — will now be disqualified from the Canada Summer Jobs grant program. In a recent attempt at clarification, officials have commented that these measures target groups advocating a pro-life message, not those engaged in other activities that “happen to hold pro-life beliefs,” though this still constitutes viewpoint discrimination, especially if pro-choice advocacy groups continue to receive funding. Regardless, it appears that whatever their activities and purposes, all organizations are still expected to affirm that their “core mandate agrees” with the government’s position on abortion, among other issues, which many are unable to do.
The Quebec and federal governments’ initiatives undermine the very principles they are purportedly promoting.
The stated purpose of Quebec’s Bill 62 is to “foster adherence to State religious neutrality,” but it contradicts much of the Supreme Court’s case law on that topic. The duty of religious neutrality requires governments to accommodate religious diversity, not extinguish it. Governments must neither favour nor hinder any particular belief. Yet Bill 62, in the name of “religious neutrality,” effectively imposes a requirement of non-belief in order to receive a generally available benefit. This is anything but neutral.
Bill 62 ... effectively imposes a requirement of non-belief.
Similarly, the federal government, in the name of advancing “individual human rights, the values underlying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and associated case law,” undermines not only the charter value of state neutrality, but also the fundamental freedoms of opinion, expression, religion and conscience. All of these charter guarantees protect the right to hold and express diverse views on moral issues, including abortion, without reprisal.
Some will argue that denying public funding does not impede these freedoms, since organizations are still free to continue operating according to their religious beliefs. This is true, but that freedom comes at the cost of exclusion from the benefits of a public program for which they are otherwise fully qualified. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against a state government for conditioning its public benefits this way, and our Supreme Court has similarly emphasized that “freedom of religion is not accommodated if the consequence of its exercise is the denial of the right of full participation in society.”
Granted, organizations do not have an automatic right to public subsidies. But they do have the right to equal participation in government programs without having to disavow their lawful religious beliefs. Where the government puts in place a scheme to provide a benefit, that scheme must comply with the charter. It is discriminatory to refuse to allow religious organizations — because of their beliefs — to compete for public funding on equal terms with secular organizations that are carrying out the same, or similar, activities.
Some may wonder what the “kerfuffle” is about, and assert that, in 2018, it is not unreasonable to expect Canadians to get in line with contemporary values. That may be satisfactory as long as one’s ideological allies form the government of the day. But what happens when a new government articulates a contrary set of “values”? We should all be deeply concerned when state actors insist that private citizens support their philosophical world view — or any particular world view, for that matter — as a precondition to equal treatment.