Pro-abortion group misinforms on abortion

I see that the pro-abortions are at it again. They are misinforming Canadians about pregnancy care centres. This disinformation campaign is so bad, that once again, Pregnancy Care Canada had to rebut these fabrications from this pro-abortion group.

(The full rebuttal is reprinted with permission below.)

It's all pretty ironic really. In case I need to remind you, Justin Trudeau wants to remove charitable status from pro-life groups because of his hatred of all things pro-life:

"Meanwhile, anti-choice organizations are actively working to spread misinformation about abortion, putting the health and safety of young people and vulnerable women at risk."

We all know that pro-life groups do no such thing. But here is a case of an organization who actually is spreading misinformation about abortion. And guess what? They received over $100,000 in government funding in the last two years alone.

So Justin Trudeau. Will you please cancel this funding? Now would be a good time.

Pregnancy Care Centres in Canada:  A Necessary Rebuttal

October 2022

Introductions

Pregnancy Care Canada is a non-political, not-for-profit, faith-based, national best practice association for over 80 affiliated pregnancy care centres, at times referred to as crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs). Most but not all pregnancy care centres are affiliated with Pregnancy Care Canada. Our affiliated centres provide a safe environment for a woman to make a pregnancy decision that is fully informed, evidence-based, consistent with her belief system, and free from external pressure. Please meet our team.

Why a Rebuttal?

Normally, we have no interest in responding to false narratives from partisan groups. However, owing to the prominence of the Institute for Research on Public Policy, we feel compelled to respectfully respond to the shocking allegations in Abortion in Canada is legal for all but inaccessible for too many.

The authors are with an organization called missINFORMED, “a national non-profit designed to provide health education and to promote informed advocacy through evidence-based teachings.”[i]

Our rebuttal does not concern the authors’ stated opinions on abortion, abortion law, and abortion restrictions in Canada, the thrust of their piece. We are addressing the accusations specific to crisis pregnancy centres. We will repeat verbatim each of the eight fraudulent allegations, and respond.

The missINFORMED Allegations

1. Compounding the issue of inequitable abortion access are unregulated crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs).[ii]

Pregnancy care centres are governed by a board of directors and operate in accordance with specified articles of incorporation, by-laws, and stated purpose. Centres adhere to all applicable Canada Revenue Agency and provincial regulations. This includes but is not limited to complying with the legal and regulatory requirements pertaining to financial management, employment, and public disclosure. Our affiliated centres which provide medical services retain healthcare professionals who work within their scope of practice and in accordance with provincial regulatory bodies. Our affiliated centres follow strict best practice guidelines, including adherence to published affiliation principles, counselling ethics, financial stewardship, and centre director accreditation. If any centre is found to be in non-compliance – i.e. unwilling or unable to meet our affiliation standards – such a centre will be removed from affiliation.

2. CPCs are anti-choice wolves in sheep’s clothing. They are advertised as a resource for individuals with unplanned pregnancies to receive support and counselling.

Apart from the “wolves” indictment, this is the only accurate statement in the article. Yes, we advertise support for individuals with unexpected pregnancies. Specifically, information on all pregnancy options: parenting, adoption, and abortion. Further, depending on the unique services of a centre, also prenatal

instruction, parenting classes, financial aid, material support (e.g. maternity clothes, baby clothes, formula, diapers, furnishings), and post abortion care (e.g. individual, support groups, and retreats).

3. However, they deceive clients with misinformation about abortion or other options that may delay or interfere with their ability to access the care they need.

Pregnancy care centres do not delay or interfere with client care access. Centre support is volitional, permission-based, and free of charge. Our affiliates have helped hundreds of thousands of women with onsite assistance and with community referrals for nearly 25 years. Our affiliates provide accurate information on all options at all stages of pregnancy.

To allege “misinformation” the authors inappropriately compare Canadian crisis pregnancy centres to various American centres in a US report: “[At] these centers, women do not receive comprehensive, accurate, evidence-based clinical information about all available options.”[iii] Leaving aside the validity of that particular report, Canadian centres are not American centres. We base our information on scientific literature and the expertise of healthcare and counselling professionals in Canada.

Our client booklet Pregnancy Options Guide has been reviewed by 80 specialized practitioners.

Why so many proofreaders?

First and foremost, for accuracy for our clients.

Second, to ensure the integrity of our information which is often challenged by organizations ideologically opposed to crisis pregnancy centres. Thus, as is noted on our Pregnancy Options Guide,

For accuracy and accountability, the Pregnancy Options Guide has been reviewed by 80 specialized practitioners in Canada, including perinatal nurses, family physicians, obstetricians-gynaecologists, medical ethicists, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers.

4. CPCs far outnumber abortion care providers in Canada.

Not a significant point, but still inaccurate. In Canada, there are over 150 abortion facilities and an estimated 125 crisis pregnancy centres.[iv]

5. Why are we, members of a pro-choice non-profit focused on evidence-based education, competing for funding with anti-choice groups such as the CPCs?

Pro-choice groups do not compete with CPCs for taxpayer funding. Pregnancy care centres rely on donations from individuals, families, businesses, churches, and private foundations.[v]

6. We heard promises that were included in the Liberal platform in 2021 to prevent anti-choice groups and CPCs from being assigned charitable status, but we have yet to see these promises kept.

The Liberal platform promise is as follows: “A re-elected Liberal government will: No longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations (for example, Crisis Pregnancy Centres) that provide dishonest counseling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy.”[vi]

We agree. All crisis pregnancy centres – and/or prochoice organizations, and prolife agencies – which knowingly provide dishonest information should not retain their CRA charitable status. With respect, we have already communicated our position to the Members of Parliament mandated with the revocation investigation.

7. One recommendation is not to limit who can obtain “charitable” status, but instead restrict what types of charities can receive donations and tax exemptions from a values-based perspective.

We could not disagree more. All charities operate from a values-based perspective. Whether secular or sacred, values are integral and universally recognized for ethical practices and service to others.

8. Religious groups focused on charitable issues could still receive funding, but those imposingreligious beliefs on others would not. 

Faith-based crisis pregnancy centres do not impose religion or sectarian beliefs. Registered charities legally cannot – and ethically must not – impose upon clients organizational or personal beliefs, whether religious, non-religious, ideological, or political.[vii]

Conclusion

The missINFORMED authors reiterate a tired script. Fall trap to confirmation bias. Make disrespectful, unsubstantiated claims.

For a woman to truly have a choice regarding her unexpected pregnancy, she must have authentic options to choose from – including the option to continue her pregnancy, receive support, and not feel pressured into an unwanted abortion. We trust the IRPP readership will see the validity and societal value of pregnancy care centres supporting vulnerable women, men, and families each day across Canada.

On behalf of Pregnancy Care Canada,

Brian Norton, Board Member

Dr. Laura Lewis, Executive Director          

For other details on our charitable impact, please see Frequently Asked Questions and Clarifications.

To learn more about Pregnancy Care Canada, please visit our website at pregnancycarecanada.ca and sign-up for our e-newsletter.

Brian Norton has a Masters of Ministry, a minor in Environmental Education, and Social Worker in-service accreditation. For 8 years, Brian was a government case worker in child protection and for families with children with special needs. For 30 years, Brian was founder and director of a charity providing sexual assault counselling, residential shelter for abused women, and two pregnancy centres. This charity has conducted trainings in 15 countries for outreaches offering help for violated women and for unplanned pregnancy. Brian serves on the board of Pregnancy Care Canada and he also serves at a foodbank/seasonal shelter for people who are homeless.

 Dr. Laura Lewis, after working for 22 years as a family physician, saw the need for education, support, and practical options for women and men facing an unexpected pregnancy. She helped co-found a local meal kitchen, a local pregnancy care centre, and now for six years serves as executive director of Pregnancy Care Canada. She has conducted post abortion grief seminars in Japan and she has uplifted mistreated, trafficked women in restoration programs in Cambodia. Dr. Lewis has a Hon. B. Comm Degree from Queen’s University, a Medical Degree from the University of Western Ontario, and a Certificate of Family Medicine from McMaster University.

Endnotes

[i] Website: missINFORMED. Accessed October 4, 2022.

[ii] Words in italic by us for emphasis.

[iii] Using the ad hominem fallacy ‘guilt by association’ (i.e. here, having similar services) – is poor scholarship. For example, what about the “reports” of US abortion clinics misconduct? Using missINFORMED reasoning, by extension, then similar violations are occurring in Canadian abortion clinics. This of course is an injudicious leap. (Reported violations in US abortion clinics: unlicensed abortion providers; surgical instruments not sterilized; expired medications; unsanitary injection practices; failure to conduct pre-anesthesia evaluations; failing to provide follow-up care; emergency hospitalizations of women negligently injured; patient logs improperly filed and/or discovered offsite; financial fraud; failure to report reasonable suspected rape/abuse of minors; sexual assault of patients by staff; improper disposal of fetal remains. A number of these clinics have surrendered their licences. Some abortion provider staff have been jailed. Sources: Americans United for Life, Unsafe, a 50-state investigative report of 300 abortion facilities cited for 2,400-plus health/safety deficiencies from 2008-2020), 2021; and “Abortion Industry Negligence Nationwide: Highlighting the Most Egregious Offenses,” Summary Document, Charlotte Lozier Institute, 2016; and Live Action, Aiding Abusers: Planned Parenthood’s Cover-Up of Child Sex Abuse, May 2018.

[iv] The figure of approximately 125 pregnancy care centres includes 15 Birthright offices, which according to Birthright are not CPCs. The authors referenced an incorrect figure for pregnancy care centres from a prochoice group which double-counted various CPCs, over-counted existing Birthright offices by a third, and mistakenly added some prolife education groups. The 150-plus figure for abortion facilities includes abortion clinics, abortion-procuring hospitals, and Quebec CLSCs (centre local de services communautaires). This figure does not include family physicians and some primary care clinics which prescribe medical abortions. Sources: Figures culled from Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, Birthright International, Alliance Ressources Grossesse, and Pregnancy Care Canada.

[v] Possible minor exceptions that are unrelated to general operations: Some centres participate in the Canada Summer Jobs program. This federal program exists to help youth gain paid work experience prior to resuming studies in the fall. The funds are not for a participating business or charity per se, but go through the organization to the student. Further, a few centres may have received a past grant toward a unique client-care project.

[vi] Liberal Party Platform: “Forward For Everyone.” September 2021, p 4.

[vii] See: “Public Policy Dialogue and Development Activities by Charities.” Canada Revenue Agency. Guidance, Reference CG-027, November 27, 2020.

"I understand that the Liberal party is pro-abortion"

My first ATIP to the Department of Finance (DOF) revealed no records on Justin Trudeau's discriminatory hateful promise to revoke the charitable status of pregnancy care centres. Which was odd, since the DOF is mandated to make the changes. 

I then ATIPped CRA and they kept referring people to DOF, since DOF is the department that would make the legal changes needed. So I ATIPped DOF again: 

“Any records relating to the mandate letter commitment to make anti-abortion charities lose their charitable status. I am requesting all the documentation to and from the Finance Department or from any other government department including the PMO, any records relating to the mandate letter commitment to make anti-abortion charities lose their charitable status. This would also include all documented materials from external persons or organizations. From November 30, 2021, to June 9, 2022”.

This time I did receive copies of letters from the public, but virtually nothing from Finance. Why is that? Is nobody at DOF discussing this election promise? I find this very hard to believe indeed.

Page 1-69: are responses to petitions from MPs.

Pages 70 to 427: are all letters from the public. And all these letters are against this discriminatory hateful policy. I didn't count the letters but that is 357 pages of them. That's a lot. Not one single letter that I received supported these changes.

I've included some of those letters below. In some cases I just include excerpts. Some great points made by people. Letters are mostly addressed to Justin Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland.

"Please have a heart and a conscience"

 "I understand that the Liberal party is pro-abortion. Knowing that, I’m curious what the party and the Prime Minister define as “dishonest counseling to pregnant women about their rights and options”. Does the Prime Minister define this as an organization truthfully outlining what abortion entails and the mental health risks post-abortion? If so, I respectfully disagree. How do you plan to go about ascertaining which organizations are providing false information when counseling pregnant women about their rights and options? Will you and/or your team be assessing the information that every pregnancy care centre across the country provides to their clients? Or will you/your team only be identifying “anti-abortion” centres and removing their charitable status, without looking in detail into the truthfulness of the counseling they provide their clients? Would this also apply to faith-based organizations? For instance, if a rabbi, imam, or pastor counsels a pregnant member of their congregation who is weighing her options regarding her pregnancy and outlines the risks associated with abortion, will that synagogue/temple/mosque/church lose its charitable status? I would hope not."

"I did not find evidence of pro-choice organizations being at risk of losing their charitable status. Advocating for only one perspective could be termed 'dishonest counseling.'"

Part 4 - CRA ATIP recognizes that many registered charities provide valuable pregnancy-related counselling and health care services

Part 3 here.

Below is something quite remarkable about CRA's comments on the so-called dishonest counseling by anti-abortion organizations. Notice how CRA actually acknowledges the "valuable pregnancy-related counseling and health care services" of many registered charities.

We already know this to be true but it's a bit of a surprise to see CRA say it.

"FEBRUARY 24, 2022

REGISTERED CHARITIES - PREGNANCY COUNSELLING AND ANTI-ABORTION ORGANIZATIONS

QUESTION : During the 2021 federal election campaign, a commitment was made to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to women. How will this commitment be implemented?

SOURCE : Anticipatory

• Our Government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have the information they need to freely make decisions over their own bodies and have access to the medical care and services that are their legal rights.

• Part of that commitment includes ensuring that anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options no longer be granted registered charity status.

• This commitment was outlined in our election platform, and in the mandate letters issued to my colleagues the Minister of Health, and the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth. 

Supplementary - Canada Revenue Agency’s role

• The Canada Revenue Agency is the federal regulator of charities in Canada. It is responsible for making sure registered charities comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act and common law.

• The Agency is prepared to administer any new rules that are implemented in line with this commitment and to provide relevant guidance to the charitable sector.

• The Agency recognizes that many registered charities provide valuable pregnancy-related counselling and health care services. (emphasis added)"

There were multiple media enquiries to CRA on this, but they were always referred back to Finance.

Part 3 - CRA ATIP Why it's a bad idea to revoke charitable status of anti-abortion organizations

Part 2 here.

“I’ve yet to find one person who does think it’s a good idea.”

This is a long article that is behind a paywall on the internet. I have highlighted some important points Doherty makes, but the entire article is worth reading.

I also noticed that this article was included twice in the package I received.

               --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FUTURE of GOOD

THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT PROMISED TO STRIP ANTI-ABORTION ORGANIZATIONS OF THEIR CHARITABLE STATUS. HERE’S WHY IT HASN’T.

May 24, 2022

Author Brennan Doherty

WHY IT MATTERS

This policy, if enacted, could affect the charitable status of organizations that oppose abortion - but it could also open the door to more scrutiny of charities any government disagrees with.

In the wake of the Supreme Court of the United States’ likely overturn of Roe v. Wade, a pivotal court case cementing the right of Americans to access abortion services, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government was quick to jump to the microphone.

Canadians, unlike Americans, have no legal right to abortion access. Ever since abortion was legalized in 1988, Canadian governments have generally taken a hands off approach to the issue: not overtly interfering with it, but not enshrining it with legal protections, either. During the last election, Trudeau pledged to penalize provinces that don’t provide a minimum level of abortion access, a major issue in Maritime provinces and the Far North. “This government will never back down on defending and promoting women’s rights in Canada and around the world,” Trudeau told the Globe and Mail in May 2022.

Nearly a year after his government returned to power, Trudeau still hasn’t implemented one of the most under-the-radar promises in his election platform: stripping the charitable status of anti-abortion organizations, including crisis pregnancy centres “that provide dishonest counseling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy.” This would happen through changes to the Income Tax Act.

The Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC) has underscored the issue of dishonest and coercive practices at crisis pregnancy centres in several reports, something the leaders of these organizations refute. “We definitely would like to see anti-choice groups not have charitable tax status,” says Joyce Arthur, executive director of ARCC.

Yet the Trudeau government may have good reason to avoid following through on their promise to strip anti-abortion organizations of their status.

Legal experts told Future of Good the policy, if enacted, would open a legal can of worms, especially around the definition of an anti-abortion organization. Future governments may use the precedent of a specific law stripping anti-abortion charities of their status to go after charitable organizations they dislike: environmental charities, for example. Furthermore, experts say, such a policy could open the door to regulating the ideology of the charitable sector in a way that doesn’t currently exist in Canada.

“We don’t regulate the normative space for charities - and by design,” says Adam Parachin, a charity law professor at York University. “The system is, by design, meant to be a space for diverse and pluralistic views. You can’t have pluralism without a diversity of views.”

DEFINE ‘ANTI-ABORTION’

The biggest question on the minds of policymakers, sector leaders, and experts when it comes to stripping anti-abortion organizations of their status is simple - what counts? Advocacy organizations like LifeCanada National Association or the New Brunswick Right to Life Association are all explicit in their anti-abortion views, but other organizations may be less so. Arthur says crisis pregnancy centres can be deceptive about their worldview despite promising to be unbiased and non-judgemental. “They never, ever talk about the risks and complications of pregnancy and childbirth, which are far greater than abortion,” she says.

On its website, the Calgary Pregnancy Care Centre says its volunteer peer counsellors are willing to discuss all options around pregnancy - including adoption, parenting, and abortion - in a caring and respectful environment. However, the Centre says on its website that it refuses to provide abortion referrals. When asked about that policy, executive director Jutta Wittmeier dismissed the question. “You don’t need a referral for an abortion clinic,” she says. “It’s a moot point.” (Arthur says the Centre should, nonetheless, be willing to give out information on abortion providers).

The Centre does more than pregnancy counseling. Wittmeier says they also give out care packages to parents, run parenting classes, and do financial literacy courses. In fact, its charitable type, according to CRA data, is ‘relief of poverty.’ This isn’t uncommon for crisis pregnancy centres. “It’s more likely to be a health centre that operates in accordance with certain beliefs,” says Kathryn Chan, an associate lawprofessor at the University of Victoria.

To make matters more complicated, many religious denominations preach against abortion. These include the Catholic and Orthodox churches, as well as many evangelical Christian denominations. Other prominent religions in Canada, such as Islam and Judaism, permit abortion to varying degrees, but sometimes restrict it for non-medical reasons. Many charities are affiliated with these religious denominations. Would they be at risk of losing it under the Trudeau government’s policy?

Even legal experts are confused. “Should there be a means test to determine what percentage of expenditures goes towards anti-abortion initiatives?” Helene Mersky, an associate lawyer at Blumberg Segal LLP focused on non-profit and charity law, recently wrote. “Should it be a question of how many people are impacted by the charity’s activity? Will charities be penalized if an officer re-tweets an anti-abortion message on the charity’s Twitter? None of these questions have thus far been addressed by the Liberals.”

If the Trudeau government did provide a clear-cut definition of an anti-abortion charity, both lawyers and charitable sector advocates say such a policy could open the door to governments penalizing charities working on issues they simply don’t like.

POLITICIZING THE CHARITABLE SECTOR

One of former Alberta Premier Jason Kenney’s major promises in the lead-up to his 2018 election was to go after environmental groups he believed were ‘attacking’ the province’s oil and gas industry. He vowed to bring a multimillion-dollar investigation down on the heads of legitimate, law-abiding charities - scrutinizing their financial ties, internal documents, and connections to anti-pipeline protects. While the resulting inquiry was completely ineffective, it did demonstrate just how a ruling party’s plans could threaten the viability of an entire corner of the charitable sector.

Imagine Canada, a lobbyist for the charitable sector, argued against the Trudeau government’s proposal for precisely this reason. As it wrote in an April 2022 statement, charity work has led to a lot of good developments in Canadian society - climate change action and same-sex marriage legalization to name a few. Banning organizations with specific ideologies could open the door for future governments to target organizations or causes they disagree with.

“If we’re going to open that can of worms and start trying to pull out one strand at a time that we don’t like, the whole house of cards is going to collapse,” Parachin says. “Maybe today, it’s anti-abortion charities. Tomorrow it could be Muslim charities or environmental charities.” Chan agrees. “You always have to think this through from both sides of the political spectrum,” she says.

The loosening of rules around political activities by charities in 2018 may actually give anti-abortion organizations a case should they face a crackdown by the federal government. Chan says the results of the case that got rid of the Income Tax Act’s rules on political activities “...suggested that there are constitutional limitations on the government’s ability to prevent charities from engaging in political activities in certain ways.” In other words, a government that tries to limit a charity’s political activities (which could include anti-abortion advocacy) may violate Canada’s constitution.

And as Imagine Canada pointed out in its statement, the federal government already has the tools to go after charities providing dishonest counselling and misinformation to clients. The Charities Directorate currently says charities providing health information must do so in a way that is “reasonably unbiased, factual and sufficiently detailed”, according to a CRA website. The regulator’s guidelines also say organizations working on public policy “must be truthful, accurate, and not misleading.”

Violating these rules can lead to disciplinary action against individual charities, including the potential removal of their charitable status.Yet legal experts say the way abortion was legalized in Canada, as well as the loosening of political speech rules for charities, could hamper the ability of the federal government to crack down on anti-abortion charities.

CANADA’S ABORTION LAW VACUUM

Canada may have legalized abortion in 1988, but the legal framework supporting it remains unclear to this day. There is, in fact, no law governing abortion in Canada. It is regulated by provincial and territorial organizations and professional associations as any other medical procedure. While this legal vacuum has allowed for abortion access across Canada without re-opening a contentious political debate on the subject, it also makes it difficult to tell whether laws restricting abortion are constitutional or not.

Pro-abortion advocates have suggested Canadian charities should be aligned withhuman rights law, and that anti-abortion activities might contravene that principle. Chan pointed to a UK case involving a Catholic adoption agency that refused to place children with same-sex couples. “It raised the question of whether that entity should have charitable status, because it was discriminating against people not in accordance with human rights law,” she says. Canada hasn’t seen such a case, but Chan says this avenue might be what pro-abortion groups use to justify the removal of charitable status.

After all, the question at stake for charitable status to anti-abortion organizations is whether or not the services they provide are for the public benefit. “Who gets to define what is for the public benefit?” Chan asks. “Does being for the public benefit mean being in accordance with human rights law? In accordance with the constitutional order?”

Unfortunately, she says, there is very little case law around this issue in Canada because of the difficulties charities have had in bringing cases to the Federal Court of Appeal, where decisions around charitable registration decisions by the CRA are made.

In fact, she says, no charity has won a case at the Federal Court related to charitable registration in over 20 years. To get around this issue, Chan says, charities are increasingly bringing cases to the Ontario Supe [rest of text missing]

And because of Canada’s lack of a concrete legal framework around abortion, it may be difficult for pro-abortion advocates to make a legal argument for stripping the charitable status of anti-abortion organizations. As Parachin puts it, the removal of the final restrictions around abortion in Canada in 1988 didn’t set out clear limits in terms of access to abortion. “We actually don’t know what kind of restriction on abortion would pass constitutional muster because we’ve not had a legislature since that time bring forward new legislation,” he says. “The idea that organizations advocating against abortion are somehow swimming upstream against established human rights takes for granted that we actually know the parameters - and we don’t.”

OPENING THE CAN OF WORMS

At the time of publication, the Canadian government hadn’t announced any additional details on whether it would revoke the charitable status of anti-abortion organizations.

Arthur says she was told by someone at Finance Canada that the rule would only apply to organizations seeking charitable status in the in future - so, an anti-abortion organization with charitable status today would keep it, but a new organization wouldn’t be allowed to apply for one.

Future of Good reached out to a spokesperson for Finance Canada on Friday afternoon with questions, including whether the Canadian government had plans to follow through on its campaign promise. As of publication time, Future of Good had not received an official response.

For her part, Wittmeier hasn’t heard anything about other crisis pregnancy centres losing their charitable statuses. “I don’t know why they haven’t followed through,” Wittmeier says of the policy. “I’m grateful because there’s lots to do helping pregnant people and their partners in the midst of difficult circumstances for whatever reason.”

Whatever the federal government does decide, the resulting legal arguments - and, likely, legal challenges - could be a nightmare for policymakers and lawyers to wade through. “I’m someone plugged in with people who spend their livelihoods opining in these fields,” Parachin says. “I’ve yet to find one person who does think it’s a good idea.”

Part 2 - CRA ATIP petitions from three MPs

Part 1 here.

Here the ATIP revealed that MP Garnett Genuis's petition was read in the Commons. Good.

"Yesterday's Hansard indicates that a petition was submitted to the House of Commons relating to the direction given by the Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in his Mandate Letter to introduce amendments the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status:

"CHARITABLE STATUS Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am tabling notes the Liberal Party's commitment in its 2021 platform to deny charitable status to organizations that hold convictions about abortion, which the Liberal Party views as "dishonest". Petitioners are concerned that this may jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other charitable organizations that do not agree with the Liberal Party on this issue for matters of conscience. It notes that many Canadians depend on these charitable organizations and that previous attempts by the government to impose a values test on charities and deny them funding or charitable status as a result have certainly been poorly received. Petitioners are highlighting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the freedom of conscience it guarantees. They call on the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test and also to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression."

Then on March 23, 2022, we have three more petitions.

"Multiple petitions were tabled in Parliament yesterday on the issue of no longer providing charitable status to anti-abortion organizations. These petitions are to contest this proposed policy.

Garnett Genuis Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB

Mr Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights with great concern a commitment from the Liberal election platform saying that it would deny charitable status to organizations that have convictions about abortion that the Liberal Party views as "dishonest." It is noted that charitable status rules already contain a prohibition against dishonest behaviour, and this particular targeting of groups based on political views is a form of political discrimination. It is the application of another values test tied to charitable status, and it is the politicization of charitable status. The petitioners note as well that this is similar to the discriminatory values test that the Liberals tried previously to associate with the Canada summer jobs program. [we remember it well].

The petitioners are calling on the government to protect Canadians’ charter rights to freedom of expression and freedom of opinion without discrimination. They call on the House to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis without discrimination on the basis of political and religious values and without the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

Kelly Block, "Petitions" on March 23rd, 2022 I open parliament.ca Kelly Block Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek; SK

Mr Speaker, I also have the honour of tabling a petition calling on the government to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values and without the imposition of another values test, and to affirm the right of Canadians to freedom of expression.

I thank these Canadians for their engagement on these important issues Damien Kurek, "Petitions11 on March 23rd, 2022 1 open parliament.ca 

Damien Kurek Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Mr. Speaker, the second petition, again signed by folks from across our country, calls upon members of Parliament to do everything in their power to prevent, block, organize against and vote against any effort by the government to revoke the charitable status of pro-life organizations in Canada, as we have seen the government be willing to do."

(All emphasis added) 

Good for these three MPs. I thank God that there are some good and faithful servants of the people of Canada, who speak out against the tyranny pro-life people are subject to from a government that discriminates against, on a continual and unabated basis, forever coming up with new and creative ways to attack and marginalize us at every turn.

To them I say thank you, thank you, thank you.

Part 1 - CRA ATIP - two bureaucrats question pro-life charitable status policy

The Liberals latest witch hunt against anything and everything pro-life is a really bad idea for pro-life charities. We all know this.

In my latest ATIP to CRA I asked for: 

"All records including but not limited to internal/external correspondence, memos, briefings, work plans and meeting notes related to the Liberal campaign promise to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations."

(My last ATIP to CRA on this subject is here.)

Most of the correspondence I received back, were copies of media articles and letters to the editor about the proposed changes. There are also a couple of pro-life letters/articles in the package. But most of what is included are media articles from progressives. 

There is one letter to the editor where we are compared to the Taliban. Really. 

There is one long article that is not unfavourable to our position, and the author makes some noteworthy points.

What is absent from the ATIP is any proof of the so-called "dishonest counseling" from any pro-life organizations. To date the our prime minister has failed to give us any proof of his allegations. That's because this is a totally made up idea, dreamt up by him to continue his unrelenting attack on pro-life groups.

A few excerpts below. More to come later.

--------------------------------------------------

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Mandate Letter states:

• "introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status, and to expand the Medical Expense Tax Credit to include costs reimbursed to surrogate mothers for IVF expenses. You will be supported in this work by the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth [no kidding]."

--------------------------------------------------

Minister for Women and Gender Equality [what a ludicrous name for a department] and Youth Mandate Letter states:

• "Support the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance in introducing amendments to the Income Tax Act to make anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to pregnant women about their rights and options ineligible for charitable status..."

--------------------------------------------------

Notice how the DPM and the Minister of Women and Gender Equality fall into lock step with the PM, agreeing without question, this discriminatory policy

But I do like the following comments below embedded in the ATIP. They are notes taken from a meeting of bureaucrats. No names. Only initials. But have a look at BM's and DW's comments. These are about the only comments I found in the document where a bureaucrat questions this stupid policy from our you know who.

BM • "Talking at Muttart about proposed amendment r.e. anti-abortion groups, giving dishonest info refused charitable status. Concern about naming one type of organization can set a dangerous precedent. Becomes a subjective discussion about what's dishonest info, future gov'ts might target pollution, or critical race theory. Does CRA not have tools around providing dishonest info already?" (emphasis added)

DW • "Mandate letter was concerning, especially given provisions in ITA to deal with dishonesty, and subjectivity around dishonesty (environment, anti-abortion,etc.) Nothing in B2022, but no clarity or further statements about what's happening." (emphasis added)

And DW again:

DW • "Mandate letters re ITA, and anti-abortion orgs providing dishonest counselling. Concerns about status being dependent on certain views, and the linking of gov't funding and those views. No consultation or info on the details. (emphasis added)

Did BM and DW not get the memo? Ouch. 

More later.

Developing and improving the skills of young people to learn about killing other people

The death industry is really about money. Clearly it's cheaper to kill people than to give them health care, palliative care, home care, mental health care, etc. It's about saving money, and in some cases, it's even about making money. 

For example, Dying with Dignity. 

In 2021 they received $1,653,893 in donations (why would anyone donate to these people anyway?). They actually had $8,000,000 in the bank that year. And they received $204,655 from the federal government in FY 2021. Why any company should receive grant money when they have this kind of money in the bank is beyond me.

But that wasn't enough. They also received two government grants from the Canada Summer jobs program for 2020 and 2021. To get this money, employers must:

"demonstrate that they are providing quality work experiences for youth that provide opportunities to develop and improve their skills." (emphasis added)

They have ten employees. Check out their salaries:

1 person earns $1 to $39,999

5 people earn $40,000 to $79,999

3 people earn $80,000 to $119,999

and the winner is...the one person who earns $160,000 to $199,999. 

Charity Intelligence who rates charities for donors (and not for the charities) gives DWD a 1 star rating (out of 5 stars). For each 

"dollar donated, after overhead costs of fundraising and admin/management (excluding surplus) 36 cents are available for programs."

That's a lot of overhead.

As Canada kills more and more of their undesirable people, I predict we will see this company do better and better financially. 

Check out the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition's terrifying information on Canada's MAID regime.