In an article published on July 6, 2022 under the title “The tax holiday for places of worship called into question”, The duty informed us that the Finance Commission of the City of Montreal suggests “that, in the context of the secularism of the State, the City asks the Government of Quebec for compensation for the taxes that it cannot collect from religious communities”, especially for places of worship. She is wrong. Municipal tax problems cannot be resolved at the expense of preserving religious heritage and what it represents for society.
In doing so, the Commission subscribes to the arguments of those who believe that the State should abstain from financing the safeguarding of religious heritage or from granting it any favorable tax treatment, under the principle of the separation of the State and religions.
Indeed, since most registered religious charities are said to devote all or most of their resources to activities related to faith and worship, some wonder where the “tangible public benefit” lies. An editorial published in this newspaper on June 8, 2019, entitled “Taxation and religion: neutrality is essential” also posed the question.
Without these tax advantages, it should be noted that the religious authorities could simply no longer provide for the upkeep of the religious heritage for which they are still responsible, which should be enough to establish a first “tangible public benefit”.
Moreover, it is all the same ironic that such objections are raised at this time, when we know that heritage organizations are proposing to extend such tax advantages to secular owners of heritage properties, which always constitute a special burden on those who must ensure their preservation.
Finally, not only do these conscientious objectors show insensitivity to the religious fact and to the spiritual needs of many of their fellow citizens, but they ignore the need to preserve this heritage for society as a whole, knowing that the The best way to achieve this is to ensure the religious and worship vocation of this heritage, the benefits of which go well beyond the circle of the faithful.
A matter of consistency
Beyond all these arguments, however, we forget that secularism is also based on the principle of freedom of conscience and religion, which the State must promote, not only under the Secularism Act of the State and the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, but also the Act respecting freedom of worship, and Quebec’s obligation to comply with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
It should also be added that under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, the European Court has enshrined the freedom of States to contribute to the financing of religions, authorizing a difference in treatment of religions for objective, historical and reasonable reasons. in a given society, allowing the attribution of an ecclesial tax resulting from a concordat between the State and a religious denomination, recognizing the principle of ecclesial autonomy, affirming that the financing of worship is also the guarantee of collective exercise of freedom of religion, European law being flexible by applying a principle of subsidiarity, which gives rise to various solutions in this area from one State to another.
All of this should relaunch the question of the nationalization of Quebec’s religious heritage. If our Law on the secularism of the State is inspired by the French model, we should be consistent, because this model, since the Law of December 9, 1905 concerning the separation of Church and State, has entrusted the responsibility of cathedrals to the State and that of parish churches to the municipalities, thus conferring responsibility for the French religious heritage on the civil authorities, France in fact being ahead of us both in terms of the management of its religious heritage and in matters of secularism , having demonstrated that these two notions were not incompatible.
It is therefore not towards less responsibility with regard to religious heritage that municipalities should tend, but rather to do more, as the Cultural Heritage Act invites them to do since the last amendments to this law came into force. in 2021.
Moreover, the Act respecting the secularism of the State does not contain any ban on the financing of religions or any exception with regard to the financing and tax treatment of religious heritage.
The proposal of the Finance Commission of the City of Montreal, if adopted by the City of Montreal and the Government of Quebec, would constitute a flagrant violation of the fundamental rights surrounding the collective exercise of freedom of religion and their own obligations. in this regard. It is inadmissible. In this, we salute the dissent to this proposal by Alan De Sousa and Laurent Desbois, respectively mayors of the boroughs of Saint-Laurent and Outremont. As the Honorable Clément Gascon wrote in Mouvement laïque québécois c. Saguenay (City) of the Supreme Court of Canada, “ […] the State’s duty of neutrality does not oblige it to refrain from celebrating and preserving its religious heritage”.