Check It Out: A recommendation that in reality, is terrible

By Joan Janzen

A man shared the following memory: “I once told a girl I was dating I loved the dish she cooked for me. In reality, it was terrible. Twenty-five years later, my wife is still cooking it at least once a month because it’s my favourite and I’ve never been able to tell her. But I let my eight-year-old daughter in on it, and now she’ll say to my wife, ‘Let’s cook Daddy’s favourite tonight.’”

Likewise, our federal government has voiced a recommendation that would be terrible for Canadians if it were to materialize. During this year’s pre-budget consultations, recommendation 430 was made. The recommendation is as follows: “Amend the Income Tax Act to provide a definition of a charity which would remove the privileged status for those who have ‘advancement of religion’ as a charitable purpose.” This report had the support of all parties except the Conservative Party.

MP Garnett Genuis wrote in an article, “At a time when many people are struggling, we should be thinking about how to strengthen and empower charities. Instead, we have a government using its last remaining strength to go after organizations that help the most vulnerable.” Nevertheless, the recommendation received little to no public attention.

Just one example of a charity that would be affected by recommendation 430 is Teen Challenge Canada, a 12-month addiction rehabilitation program for adults. They have nineteen centres located across Canada and provide 433 spaces to serve men and women who want to find freedom from addiction.

Their annual report revealed all their operating costs are funded by thousands of donors. Eighty-one percent of the funds raised are used for program activities to benefit the people in centres across Canada while the remaining funds are utilized for community engagement, addiction education, fundraising and other necessary expenses.

Recommendation 430 would have a devastating impact on this faith-based charity which has been operating in Canada since 1991. It also has more than 1500 centres operating worldwide since 1958.

They report a 78 percent success rate for overcoming addiction and beginning a new life. What a loss that would be! Yet it is just a drop in the bucket of the terrible impact recommendation 430 would have.

Garnett Genuis provided some insight during an online interview with his brother Dr. Quentin Genuis, who is a front line emergency doctor in Vancouver’s downtown east side.

“I come to work and see young people dying of overdoses, and I feel it in my bones that there’s an utter failure that topples all success,” Dr. Quentin observed. He shared about a young man who moved to Vancouver from Ontario, went to a party, “and used something that he thought was something else and died of an overdose.”

Dr. Quentin phoned the young man’s mother in Ontario to give her the news, to which she responded by yelling, “How could you let this happen?” It’s just one of his many experiences on the front lines which has caused him to conclude that addiction isn’t solely a medical or political problem.

“Medical care for people with addictions is vital, but we harm people when we say it’s a narrow medical problem - just go talk to your doctor,” he said. “Similarly it’s deceptive when people say we just need the right policy and the problem would go away.”

He stressed that both medical care and good policy are vital, “but if anyone thinks that will solve the problem, it just lets you off the hook from your responsibility to your own family, neighbours and community,” he said.

He described addiction as a “belonging problem” in our isolated society where people who can’t find purpose and meaning are drawn to harmful habits. The solution is not easy and requires love and caring social interaction, but it’s never hopeless.

“I know people who had the severest addiction who many people considered beyond hope, who found hope and healing because their mom found them on the street, brought them home and fought for them through a long journey of recovery,” Dr. Quentin said.

He recognized that safe supply helps make severe addiction a little bit safer, but made the following suggestion: “Instead of investing in making horrible suffering slightly less dangerous today, we should invest in believing that people can find meaningful hope, recovery and freedom.”

Consequently, he suggested an alternate solution. “We should invest in available spaces that promote real recovery and, as much as possible, partner with communities and groups that can do things that politicians and doctors can’t do.” And that’s exactly what faith-based charities do the best.

The CEO of Teen Challenge Canada said in their annual report: “Every individual we help is a victory against addiction - by restoring lives, and mending families. Our heart is not just about treating addiction, but in rebuilding lives, renewing faith, and restoring hope to those who have lost it.”

The parties who agree with removing charitable status for charities that advance religion as part of their purpose may consider it a ‘favourite’ recommendation now. However, like the husband I mentioned earlier, they need to have enough foresight to recognize that “in reality, it’s terrible.”