Two steps forward one step backwards

There were two good news stories recently about potential abortion services closing (yea):

Number 1:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/canadian-abortion-group-says-it-may-have-to-shutter-after-losing-government-funding/

One of Canada’s largest non-profit sexual health organizations is at risk of closing dozens of its clinics due to funding constraints. Options for Sexual Health operates 52 clinics across B.C. Thirty are managed by the nonprofit, while the rest operate in partnership with other organizations.

Number 2: 

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/vancouver/article/vacuum-of-services-bc-sexual-health-clinics-at-risk-of-closure/

A national group that helps people who have trouble accessing abortion services says it may be forced to shut down in several months after Health Canada declined to renew its funding for the upcoming year. 

Abortion Care Canada [formerly National Abortion Federation Canada] says it had sought $1.3 million from the federal government’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund for the next fiscal year but will get nothing, despite having received about $2.2 million in total since the fund was established in 2021.

 

(This is interesting. I just tried going to Abortion Care Canada https://nafcanada.org/ website and it looks like you have to have a user id to do so. What's up with that?)

Imagine that. Pro-abortion charities might have to  actually start fundraising instead of depending on government handouts. The horror.

But then we had this announcement from Women and Gender Equality Canada Strengthening 2SLGBTQI+ communities to advance equality in Canada (Boo)

Today, Lisa Hepfner, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth announced up to $41.5 million for 106 projects across four different 2SLGBTQI+ funds. This funding will advance equality for 2SLGBTQI+ communities across Canada and address the rise in hate.

This announcement came January 31st in the middle of Canada's tariff crisis with the US. Maybe they thought nobody would notice. And that's $41.5 million over and above the gazillions we already spend on LGBT. 

Big donors to Dying with Dignity

Guess who is donating to Dying with Dignity? 

"As a charitable organization, Dying With Dignity Canada would not exist nor have the impact it does were it not for the generous contributions of all our donors and supporters. We would like to acknowledge a group of supporters to whom we owe an enormous debt of gratitude."

Just some of the corporate donors. There are 65 pages of donors, most are individuals.

• Bell
• Google
• Google Ad
• Great Toronto Airport Authority
• Healthcare Excellence Canada
• Hospice Greater Saint John  
• MAiD Family Support Society
• Microsoft
• Rogers
• Telus
• United Way East Ontario
• Vancouver Island Mental Health

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 5

Here is my review of the first half of my recent ATIP to Finance. 

I wrote about the second half, here, here, here and here.

This first half contains many references to US statues and US information discussing ways to go after Crisis Pregnancy Centres. It appears that the government was looking for something they could hang their coat on, to justify allegations of misinformation coming from pregnancy care centres. I guess they knew that there was nothing in Canada that helped their case. And any comments made on these statutes were redacted.

And of course, there were more letters from Joyce Arthur. Arthur writes a lot of letters to the government. They were included. 

I've counted the number of exclusions it contains. There are 270 of them.

Section 20 12 times

Section 19 14 times

s.17 62 times

s.19 10 times

Section 69 86 times

s.69 27 times

Section 23 10 times

s.16 49 times

So here's the thing. Why don't we just get rid of the Access to Information Act altogether? I am dead serious. Anything of substance in my request is redacted or withheld. So why do we keep pretending that the Act is working? It is not.

This ATIP took 19 months for me to get information back. Clearly a lot of bureaucrats spent a lot of time reading documents, and making sure nothing of substance was revealed. What a waste of time for bureaucrats. What a waste of time and money, especially for tax payers.

Or, we could make access to information real and allow information to be disclosed. As in, stop redacting and excluding information that the client is looking for. Stop pretending that the Access to information is a real thing. It is not.

Joyce Arthur's libelous attacks on Pregnancy Care Centres

There would be massive repercussions to Pregnancy Care Centres and other pro-life charities if they were to lose their charitable status. From Pete Baklinski:

"Over 40 percent of our country’s registered charities advance religion. If these 32,000 religious charities — including churches and religious-based groups which operate soup kitchens, shelters, refugee homes, and food banks — were to suddenly lose their charitable status, they would be forced, according to Canadian law, to pay a revocation tax, which is predetermined to be equal to 100 percent of the value of the organization’s remaining assets."

All their assets. Poof. Gone. Pure evil. 

And this from a recent interview Rabble did with Joyce Arthur, the lobbyist who has been lobbying the government for years with her unfounded attacks on Pregnancy Care Centres. All emphasis added:

"Originally we were looking for a way to stop CPCs in general from getting charitable tax status maybe revoking status from those that already had it. In the end we actually took a softer line and ARCC was lobbying the government about this for many years....how it went is that the bill would have to transparency disclose whether or not they would provide abortion or contraception and they would have to do that in a very clear way, all their pubic facing material, clients on phone etc. and really we were just calling for them to be honest you know the way they always claim to be honest, so like what's the problem, right? We were calling their bluff in a sense. So it wasn't about saying oh if a CPC misinforms, then you are going to have your charitable tax status revoked, the route we tried to go but it became too difficult because how do you determine what is misinformation and whose science is correct and all that kind of stuff and that's not a job for the CRA right? 

And apparently the CRA lawyers and the finance lawyers who looked at the solution requiring them to disclose properly sort of gave the thumbs up and said we can manage this, i.e. if there is a charter challenge to this law we can defend it cause we wouldn't want the law thrown out of court for being unconstitutional so I think it was a really good compromise in that sense, it would have worked and not really any grounds for the anti-choice groups to complain about it because calling on them to be honest like they claim to be, so it was just too bad that it got dropped..."

"They deliver with a big dose of biblical morality. If you're going to pretend to provide care to pregnant people, the least you should do is provide accurate information. Guilting them, shaming them, scaring them, and confusing them, all these really negative things, which are all totally opposite to the way good patient care should go."

Arthur is a master at misinformation and disinformation as she continues her hideous attacks on these centres. You would think the government would verify Arthur's false claims before bowing to her unrelenting hatred of all things pro-life.

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 4

So what evidence did I find of "misinformation" from Pregnancy Care Centres in this ATIP? Well, none so far. (I've only looked at the the second half of the ATIP).

On page 73 we have an example of "misinformation" provided by Joyce Arthur. This can be safely ignored as Arthur's evidence of Pregnancy Care centres misinformation has been refuted many times.

Then there is this statement by the NDP; can also be safely ignored because it's just the NDP parroting Joyce Arthur.

Pages 199-282 are US legal cases on "misinformation".  

So there are lots of pages of attempts to justify "misinformation". There are lots of redacted information. The government is clearly looking for reasons (and doing cartwheels) to get ammunition to persecute and target pregnancy care centres for "misinformation". But other than Joyce Arthur and NDP MPP Leah Gazan's claims of misinformation, I could not find any actual evidence or proof of Canada's pregnancy care centres indulging in "misinformation".

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 3

Excerpts from letters sent to Chrystia Freeland regarding Pregnancy Care Centres. There is a lot more thought and common sense put into these letters than what was put into Justin Trudeau's decision to go after pro-life charities.

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

My first concern is that the Liberal government appears to demonstrate prejudice and bias in targeting pregnancy care centers as examples of providing dishonest counselling regarding women's rights and choices for a crisis pregnancy.

Secondly, you disregard the tremendous volunteer support crisis pregnancy centers provide women in order to offer real choice, with complete information about these choices and the impact they may have on a woman's life.

Finally, the proposed amendment demonstrates biased, values-based influence by a government that infringes on my values and right to choose which charities I wish to support. 

But just who will determine, on the government's behalf, what information is deemed dishonest and what information is evidence-based and accurate? What scientific and/or legal experts will be engaged, without bias? Why have you only targeted 'anti-abortion' charities and said nothing that states with equal clarity that abortion providers will face the same scrutiny? Can you point to any published guide (such as the one Pregnancy Care provides) that abortion providers give to every woman who seeks an abortion, to be certain these women fully understand their options?

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

We are concerned, however, that contrary to Charter protections of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, organizations may be singled out simply because they hold particular underlying beliefs about abortion and when life begins.

There is a lack of data about what specific problem or problems this change is intended to address. We ask that before any process of legislative or regulatory change is undertaken, there is research, clarification and public communication about the specific problems that are spurring the change. The need for new policy or legislation should be clearly stated and based on evidence.

Part of clarifying the problem to be addressed includes identifying the gaps in the existing system. New legislation or regulation is only needed if the current system is inadequate or unable to address the problem. The CRA has robust regulatory and compliance measures to address issues in the charitable sector. These measures focus on education and bringing charities into compliance as a starting position. The mandate letter suggests a troubling shift away from an education and compliance-first approach. It is even more disturbing that such a change seems under consideration only for certain kinds of charities. We question what the justification could be for this significant change in approach.

Further, the terms in the mandate letter raise significant concerns about the Charter-compliance of such an initiative. The phrase "anti-abortion organizations" suggests that groups could be singled out for additional scrutiny and possible denial of charitable status simply on the basis of their beliefs about when life begins. The qualifier of "dishonest counseling" offers little assistance as it is neither defined nor explained. Rather, it seems very subjective and could make the government the arbiter of acceptable opinion or belief.

We are very concerned that participation in the public square and a level playing field with respect to government programs could be subject to a values test.

We ask that any policy or legislative changes follow the principles of procedural fairness and consistency. We ask that you consider carefully compliance with Charter protections of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Please be careful not to politicize the charitable sector. Canada has a diverse charitable sector that is permitted to hold opinions and views that differ from the government. If charitable status were to depend on alignment with the policy of any particular government, all charities - and Canada's vibrant charitable sector - would be at risk.

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

What exactly is the definition of “dishonest counseling” as expressed by Prime Minister Trudeau? Does Mr. Trudeau consider ALL pregnancy counseling OTHER THAN abortion counseling as “dishonest”?

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

Our Charter guarantees freedom of conscience, religious belief, and expression. No legitimate charity that operates with integrity should be called ‘dishonest’ because it disagrees with the government’s ideology. What are the criteria for the government’s definition of ‘dishonest counseling’? Is the pro-life position viewed as being ‘dishonest’?

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

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 2

The exchange below between Leah Gazan and Chrystia Freeland also appeared in my ATIP to Finance. Gazan who is an NDP MPP asks Freeland about the removal of charitable funding from anti-abortion charities. I especially appreciate this part of her question that says:

(b) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; and (c) on what dates were the meetings in (b) held?

True to form for this currently prorogued government, Freeland doesn't answer the question. In fact Freeland's answer to MPP Gazan is the same response she has given to people who write to her.

And now Ms. Freeland is running for the leadership of the Liberal party. Yikes.

Next we have Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue unable to answer the question either. At least she says she can't answer the question. As we all know now, they have changed their tactic of witch hunting pro-life charities, into instead Protecting reproductive freedom by preventing abuse of charitable status. 

Concerns have been raised that some registered charities that offer reproductive health services to women, including pregnancy options counselling, may be spreading misinformation by presenting themselves as neutral, full-service pregnancy support service organizations when they are in fact anti-choice organizations that push women away from accessing the reproductive care of their choice. By concealing the true nature of their services, these anti-choice organizations are restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women to choose the reproductive care appropriate to them and their circumstances.

"Concerns... misinformation...concealing". No proof. No evidence. Just false allegations based on nothing. Again. 

Question No.874—

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the commitment in the Liberal Party’s 2021 election platform to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations, such as crisis pregnancy centres: (a) what consultation processes has the government established to define an anti-abortion organization; (b) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; and (c) on what dates were the meetings in (b) held?

Links & Sharing

Question No.874—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

December 2nd, 2022 / 12:20 p.m.

University—RosedaleOntario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act does not define the concept of charity but relies on the common law definition. Under the common law, charitable purposes fall under one of four categories: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the courts have determined to be charitable, for example, the protection of the environment or the promotion of health.

Canadian tax incentives for charitable donations are considered to be amongst the most generous in the world. Given this generosity and other tax privileges provided to charities, organizations that choose to register as charities are required to follow a particular set of rules set out in the Income Tax Act. These rules are primarily designed to ensure that donated funds are used for charitable purposes, protecting public trust in the charitable sector as a whole.

All registered charities are required to ensure that the information that they provide is accurate and evidence-based, and are prohibited from disseminating information that is false or misleading.

Our government remains committed to no longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of a pregnancy.

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the charitable status of anti-abortion organizations in Canada, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year, since 2015-16: (a) how does the government define what an anti-abortion organization is; and (b) how many organizations have received or maintained charitable status while meeting the definition in (a)?

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-MadeleineQuébec

Liberal

Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, as the federal regulator of registered charities, the CRA is responsible for making sure charities comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act and common law. While the CRA is responsible for administering policy once implemented, it is not the CRA’s role to develop tax policy. As such, while the CRA is prepared to administer any new rules that are implemented and to provide relevant guidance to the charitable sector, the CRA is currently unable to respond in the manner requested.

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 1

I recently (finally) received the response to my ATIP to Finance regarding Pregnancy Care Centres. There are a lot of pages, much of which has been redacted.

I will be posting some of the information I received in the upcoming days, including some of the letters people wrote to Minister Chrystia Freeland. 

It seems that when people wrote followup emails to the Minister, they did not receive a reply. These two letters below are both just such follow up letters. I bold some of the important questions that were not answered by Ms Freeland.

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

Friday, January 13, 2023 2:22 PM Chrystia Freeland P. Dowdall

Re: 009343 - your correspondence of October 26, 2022

Dear Ms. DaSilva,

Thank you for your thorough response. I ask that these thoughts also be taken into account:

since the Liberal government is committed to women's reproductive health and women's rights to be accurately informed about "options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy since in this regard, pregnancy care centers are negatively targeted in the Liberals platform, 'Forward For Everyone' and yet Pregnancy Care Canada has possibly one of the most comprehensive brochures to provide clients with information regarding options in a crisis pregnancy; since the government believes it is it's right to determine which women's health providers receive my tax dollars (such as abortion providers), and which may not receive my donations, (or I cannot claim these donations on my taxes), seriously contradicting your statement that the government "does so while respecting Canadians' right to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and religion under the Charter"; then I ask to what high degree does the government hold accountable abortion providers with regards to breadth and accuracy of information provided to women about "options available to them at all stages of the pregnancy"? Would any abortion provider have a brochure to offer women similar to that provided by Pregnancy Care Canada? Would the government require such information be provided to women seeking abortions? Why or why not?

I realize that health care largely comes under the province's purvey, but as the federal government is policing pregnancy care centers, then surely they will just as carefully scrutinize abortion providers, to be sure that these facilities are providing thorough and accurate advice.

Is this the intention of the Liberal government? Why or why not? It is not strictly a health question, but also is a finance issue, in the same way that tax donations are a finance issue. I most certainly agree with the Liberal government that those who provide for women's reproductive choices should be providing thorough, and accurate information.

Sincerely,

Sent from my iPad

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

From:

Tuesday, October 18, 2022 4:14 PM Chrystia Freeland

008738 (xref: 008446) - Office of the Prime Minister / Cabinet du Premier ministre

Thank you for your reply to my recent letter.

There is one concern I have with regards to your reply. You indicate that "All registered charities are required to ensure that the information that they provide is accurate and evidence-based, and are prohibited from disseminating information that is false or misleading. These requirements apply equally to registered charities that provide reproductive health services to Canadians."

What proof does the Federal Government have that Pregnancy Centres provide false or misleading information? I am not aware of any court case or any documented proof that Pregnancy Centres mislead or provide false information.

I look forward to receiving your reply. Thank you.

Ontario Health hides abortion information - Again

The Ontario government is again hiding abortion information from a freedom of information request I did. The last time they did this, we were forced to go to court. We won that case. 

Pretty sad that one must go to all that time and expense of a court case, just to practice your freedom of expression rights that you theoretically have, and that the army of government highly paid lawyers says nope, we don't want to let you have your rights. If you want them, then go to court.

Below is a copy of the letter I received that refused my request, and my request is also detailed in that refusal letter. 

And remember. If we hadn't fought my last case, Ontario would still not be getting accurate abortion numbers based on doctor's billing codes. They would still be hidden. Here is Justice Marc R. Labrosse's reasons for his decision last time. The Information Commissioner intervened in our case. It took no position on the outcome of our Application. Justice Labrosse was very clear in his decision, and it is a very enlightening read.

I am appealing their decision.

Here is that refusal letter.

Our File – Notre référence A-2024-00026 / FT

Dear Patricia Maloney:

I am replying to your access request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for the following information:

1) Please provide information on how abortion clinics in Ontario are inspected to ensure that they follow all regulations and compliance for health and safety requirements. Include how often inspections are performed.

2) Please provide information on the results of all compliance inspections for all abortion clinics in Ontario for the past five years.

Clarification as of March 26, 2024:

1)       The requester is willing to limit the request to the last two years (calendar or fiscal).

2)       The requester is seeking only Ottawa and Toronto clinics.

Time frame: The last 2 fiscal or calendar years

A comprehensive search was conducted by the Health Programs and Delivery Division and 3 records (285 pages) were located in response to your request. Based on the fact that the records fall under the exclusionary provision, Section 65(13)(a), of the Act, access is denied in full. Angie Wong, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Programs and Delivery Division, is responsible for this decision.

A copy of the section of the Act is attached to this letter and it provides the Health Programs and Delivery Division the right to deny access to records.

You may request a review of this decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner 2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400, Toronto ON  M4W 1A8. Please note that you have 30 days from the date of this letter to request a review.  In the event that you do seek a review, please provide the Commissioner’s Office with:

The request file number:  A-2024-00026 / FT

A copy of this decision letter.

A copy of your original request.

A cheque or money order in the amount of $25.00 payable to the Minister of Finance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Consultant  |  Access, Privacy & Corporate Information / Corporate Services Division

Ministry of Health |  Ontario Public Service

Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Exemptions

Application of Act

Non-application of Act, provision of abortion services

65(13) This Act does not apply to information relating to the provision of abortion services if,

(a) the information identifies an individual or facility, or it is reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that it could be utilized, either alone or with other information, to identify an individual or facility

Dying with Dignity - lobbies the government a LOT

The following excerpts are from another Dying With Dignity Canada ATIP (from January 1, 2021 to August 14, 2023) I did to Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). I have italicized what appears to be HC's comments in this internal email, since their red comments do not appear in the ATIP.

Internal email in ESDC.

Dying with Dignity was one of the stakeholders that was consulted and submitted comments on the MAID regulatory amendments. Most of their submission was fairly technical - i.e. commenting on the wording of specific provisions, however, I've extracted some of the general points that they raised. I’ve made a few comments in red as to our position re the comments - the ones in which I haven't included comments go beyond the scope of the regulations.

As noted in our suggestions to Health Canada in May, DWDC believes MAID reports would benefit from the inclusion of real-world context behind the data, including patients' background information (excluding their identity), their condition, and additional details concerning their decision to seek MAID; including such real- world information in Health Canada's reports could also lead to enhanced public understanding of MAID, including the various instances in which people seek to access it. It should be noted that in a January 2021 poll commissioned by DWDC and conducted by Ipsos, it was found that 37% of Canadians do not know that MAID is legal in Canada or believe that it is illegal. While HC's agree that this detail is important, we believe that it is best captured through third-party research and not by practitioners. 

• In provinces which employ more of centrally coordinated MAID system (e.g., Alberta) the collection of additional patient information is made much easier when an intake person is responsible for that function. It should be noted that there is concern however that this could lead to a disparity in data collection across the country. HC agrees that the care coordination model is an efficient way to collect data and can reduce practitioner reporting burden.

• The federal government should recognize the significant new administrative burden that will be placed on MAID clinicians if they are required to ask all of the proposed questions Based on stakeholder feedback, HC is looking at ways to reduce the number of question in order to reduce administration burden on practitioners. However, it should be recognized that there will be increased reporting burden due to Bill C7 requirements to collect data on race, Indigenous identity and disability and the enhanced procedural requirements for persons whose death is not reasonably foreseeable.

• The federal government should work with the provinces to provide reasonable administrative support through targeted funding.

• The federal government should work with the provinces on the development of a model for the fair and equitable remuneration to Nurse Practitioners who provide MAID services

• The information sought should be tied to an individual's health card so it can be readily accessed via the province by Health Canada

• Remove all questions that can be answered by patients and are not eligibility/procedural safeguard questions and place them in a separate paper and electronic survey on Health Canada letterhead and available for printing by clinicians; it must be made very clear in this document that patients are contributing to the overall understanding of MAID in Canada and the identification of any systemic barriers to MAID Provinces and Territories already integrate questions that go beyond eligibility/procedural safeguards into their own MAID reporting forms/systems and for P/Ts reporting directly to Health Canada this is incorporated into the reporting portal. Doing this as a separate survey would only increase reporting burden.

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

Here we have the Minister meeting with DWDC. Other Ministers have also met with DWDC. I wonder if these ministers have met with anyone opposed to euthanasia, or if they only meet with Dying With Dignity?

MEMORANDUM TO THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND DISABILITY INCLUSION 

Meeting with Dying with Dignity on December 7, 2021

For your Meeting

Summary

• You are meeting with the organization Dying with Dignity Canada (DWDC) regarding medical assistance in dying (MAID) on Tuesday December 7 at 2:00 p.m. DWDC representatives Helen Long and former Senator James Cowan will attend the meeting.

...Issues of interest to DWDC that are the focus of AMAD and the Expert Panel. Specifically, DWDC opposes the exclusion of mental illness and advance requests from MAID; they are in favor of reducing procedural barriers to MAID... 

...Organizations such as DWDC are opposed to the exclusion of mental illness from MAID... 

...Before the Act was passed, the House of Commons rejected a Senate amendment that would have permitted advance requests for MAID prior to being diagnosed with a grievous and irremediable medical condition (i.e., dementia). DWDC, among other organizations, was opposed to the Government’s decision to reject this amendment... 

Clearly, Dying with Dignity opposes any exclusions to MAID. 

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

From an email internal to ESDC:

I attended a meeting today with Min (Kristina and Taras) with Dying with Dignity (former Senator Jim Cowan and Helen L). Focus of the discussion was how to bridge the gap between the perspectives of the disability community with that of dying with dignity. Specifically the organization was seeking advice on how to engage disability organizations.

Dying with dignity emphasized that as a principle their organization supports the idea that persons with disabilities should have access to the programs and services that would allow them to live.

But they see this as a separate issue from MAID and expressed concern that disability organizations were using MAID as a way to leverage additional action on disability supports. The emphasized that from their experience and work the perspective of advocacy organizations and individuals with disabilities was not aligned. That according to their studies and surveys persons with disabilities are just as likely to be supportive of MAID as other Canadians. They added that the principle of autonomy and choice were important ones for persons with disabilities to be treated equally as other Canadians.

What about the persons with disabilities who are not supportive of MAID? There are lots of them. And once again, we have the DWDC doing their own studies.

They stated that many persons with disabilities do not want to make their perspectives known publicly and this is hindering their ability to bring these issues to light. They also speculated whether there needed to be more engagement and discussion (education) with the disability community about the process for MAID and the current safeguards in place.

Min emphasized that education was not necessarily something they saw as an issue, but identified some common ground on issues such as data collection, the development of safeguards. DWD indicated that there were no known cases of abuse of MAID in Canada and didn’t think it would be necessary to add additional safeguards noting these could end up being barriers to MAID . They also were not sure that making individuals aware of disability supports available to them would be practical  and were concerned that given the differences in supports available across the country this may lead to a barrier for individuals to access MAID.

Known cases of MAID abuse. Barriers to MAID are a problem? Disability supports are not practical?

Min raised that while there may not be cases of abuse known, that the pandemic has highlighted some of the biases that exist in the health care system and that often physicians look at disability more from a medical rather than social perspective and that there are biases embedded in that including disableism and ableism. Training was therefore an important aspect of the MAID system to ensure there was greater awareness of disability issues and the experiences of persons with disabilities.

Min said that there would be opportunities to engage more when the parliamentary review restarted and that they were also watching closely the work of the expert panel on mental health. It was agreed that a dialogue with the disability community may not be productive but finding areas of common ground would be.

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

Helen Long is worried about the negative news reports on MAID. As we all should be. Very worried.

From: Helen Long, Dying With Dignity Canada Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 at 11:11 

Subject: Clearing up misconceptions

Hi

Stories have been circulating in the media about people in Canada being forced to access MAID, and that those who are not able to access supports that they need to live are opting to have MAID instead. We have published some facts on our website to clear up common misconceptions, like these ones, around Bill C-7 and expanded eligibility criteria for medical assistance in dying.

Recent polling has shown that 82% of Canadians support the removal of the "reasonably foreseeable" death requirement from MAID legislation and that 86% continue to support the Carter v. Canada decision. These and other stats can be found in a newly released Ipsos poll, conducted on behalf of Dying With Dignity Canada. 

Note above that maybe polling should be done from a third party and not by DWDC.

We were pleased to see the House of Commons unanimously support a motion regarding a Canada Disability Benefit. The federal government must increase investments into supports for people with disabilities and fully support our most vulnerable populations, so they have every opportunity to thrive.

Thanks to the generous contributions of 1,247 supporters, we surpassed our fundraising goal this spring, with a total of $111,663 raised (and counting!).This support has afforded our team the resources needed to increase our education, patient navigation, and support work now and into the future.

This is a common bragging point in DWDC's emails--how wonderful it is to get the thousands and thousands of dollars in donations.

The last thing I want to share with you today is that the Final Report of the Expert Panel on MAID and Mental Illness has been released. This report will help to inform the Committee as they finalize their own Interim Report on MAID and Mental Illness, which is expected to be completed by June 23. We thank the members of the Panel for their work in producing recommendations on practice standards, vulnerabilities, implementation, and more.

Sincerely,

Helen

CEO

Thanks to Kelsi Sheren and Jordan Peterson: drowning with MAID

As I've mentioned before, Dying with Dignity has a very close relationship with the End of Life care division of Health Canada. They advise the Health Minister, and email the department regularly.

Besides Health Canada they also lobby the Justice department, and have done so since at least 2020, with a documented 115 monthly lobby reports. They lobby MPs, senators, ministers, government whips, the PMO's office, bureaucrats, basically anyone with a pulse.

So...remember when Kelsi Sheren told Jordan Peterson about the The Horrifying Truth Behind MAID They Aren't Telling You, based on testimony of Dr Joel Zivot? As in, people are drowning when they are MAIDed?

Well it seems that Helen Long of Dying with Dignity fame went a bit apoplectic when people started calling her about this (My recent ATIP for DWDC):

'Hi,

As I'm sure you're aware the misinformation (that hardly seems like enough of a word) about drugs used in the MAID process in Canada and the way they are experienced by patients is out of control. I'm sure you've seen the clip REDACTED and there have been numerous articles circulating. REDACTED got this request this morning indicating things are becoming more far reaching and skewed than ever. We've been getting quite a few calls and REDACTED mentioned that they are having patients express fear and concern to clinicians because of this inaccurate information. (emphasis added)

I'm wondering if Health Canada (as the regulator) is considering adding additional information regarding the drugs or some kind of fact check regarding the REDACTED comments to their website or releasing some kind of statement? Can you tell me if there have been any discussions with comms?

Happy to have a quick call if that's helpful. I can be reached at REDACTED

Best,

Helen

Helen Long (she/her)'

I hope patients are expressing fear and concern about letting the likes of the pro-deathers kill them. That is good news. Thankfully Health Canada doesn't appear to act on Helen Long's panic letter.

'Hi Helen,

Thanks for flagging. We are still having discussions regarding what we are able to address and how. Unfortunately material such as podcasts (that you forwarded earlier) and challenging to address since they are opinion pieces essentially. Also, we don't want to bring additional attention to that type of material.

Appreciate you continuing to keep me in the loop.

Thanks,

Here is Dr Joel Zivot's submission to the Senate on February 8, 2021. Dying with Dignity debunks Dr Zivot's testimony. Of course they do. I encourage readers to read his testimony yourselves and be your own judge as to whether or not people drown when receiving MAID.

Note: Dr. Zivot discusses the three MAID drugs that DYDC also confirms are used for MAID.

Finance committee biased against pro-life charities

Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights said this in their submission for the PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE 2025 BUDGET: 

'In Canada, anti-abortion organizations use misleading information in an attempt to dissuade people from seeking safe abortion and some politicians are promoting disinformation regarding sexuality education and gender-affirming care.' 

This misinformation and disinformation from ACSHR resulted in this recommendation from the Report of the Standing Committee on Finance:

'Recommendation 429: No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.'

ACSHR makes unproven and already debunked allegations about pro-life charities, and this results in the Standing Committee on Finance recommending that pro-life charities lose their charitable status. Is this for real? Did the committee verify these allegations? Did they do any checking at all on the validity of these claims? Because if they did they would have learned that any disinformation and misinformation comes from the pro-abortion side of the divide.

Unbelievably, this committee is willing to recommend that an entire sector of charities lose their charitable status, based on untruths. These falsehoods come from an organization that has received millions of dollars in government grants, all the while Pro-life charities receive no government grants.

And should a charity that receives millions, be allowed to lobby the government to remove the charitable status from another charity? Is this ethical? Or are ethics not important anymore?

Removing the charitable status from pro-life organizations, based on unproven allegations from another charity, who themselves receive millions in government funding, and who have a long history of attacking pro-life groups with the help of these government grants, should bear some pretty serious scrutiny. But no, pro-life people and charities have endured bias from the pro-abortions and this Liberal government for nine long years.