Focusing on only one group to revoke charitable status "dangerous precedent and unnecessary"

I received access to this ATIP to CRA - A-2023-162975: 

Records related to the Canada Revenue Agency’s (CRA) policies and decision-making mechanisms when an organization applies for charitable tax status, and how the CRA makes decisions to conduct audits after receiving a complaint. As well all records related to the 2021 Liberal Party promise to no longer give charitable tax status to anti-abortion groups from October 29, 2022, to May 25, 2023.

It seems that a senior policy analyst had some serious concerns with the government's [read Justin Trudeau's] witch hunt against pro-life organizations, and in particular pregnancy care centres.

From: Ainslie, Camille, Senior Policy Analyst / Planning and Legislation Division / Canada Revenue Agency 

Sent: January 17, 2023 12:12PM

To: Wehbe, Suzanne

Subject: RE: 2023 Bl Report- call for topics

I believe you have extended the deadline for suggestions, but wanted to send you my thoughts so far:

How do other common law regulators of charity explain their approach to regulatory and risk framework, and what can we learn from them? [This is how I view Sharmila's question about balancing resources devoted to up front review (ADM) with downstream review (Compliance), we achieve the balance by focusing on risk]

In the era of fake news, do other common law of charity regulators (in the US, Australia, England and Wales, New Zealand), provide any guidance to charities about the regulatory consequences of circulating mis-information, and if so, what can we learn from this?

Driver: Ministerial mandate letters touch on mis-information regarding anti-abortion organizations. Given the concerns expressed by the TIWG about focusing on one type of group, perhaps we should look more generally at this issue (there are high profile media reports of other organizations spreading mis-information such as those denying the issues at residential schools, or spreading incorrect information about vaccine impacts). (emphasis added)

Identify if, and how, common law regulators of charity in other countries provide guidance to charities on how breaking the criminal law will impact charitable registration...

Then there's this repeated four times in the document:

In April 2022,TIWG, we heard from the roundtable: • There are concerns that the anti-abortion legislation targets only one type of charities [sic] for providing miss information [sic]. This is a dangerous precedent and unnecessary. The Agency already has the tools to address organizations providing miss information (emphasis added)

Government targeting just one group of charities for ideological reasons is never a good idea.

Part 3 - pro-abortion author continues witch hunt

Previous post Part 2 - Pro-abortion report - uses US experience of PCCs

You know, it is very sad when people have so much ill will towards pregnancy care centres, that they relentlessly attack these centres for years on end. But that's not enough. They have also made repeated unwarranted complaints to CRA about them. Thankfully CRA has not acted on these complaints. Regardless, nobody should have to endure such frivolous, vexatious and unfounded accusations.

"As of December 2022, a total of 66 complaints have been made to the CRA by ARCC and allied groups, against 40 CPCs and 26 advocacy groups. None has had their charity status revoked due to the complaints. ARCC has also researched the wealthiest or most influential anti-choice groups in Canada and found that ten had an annual revenue of over $750,000 was in 2021, including seven CPCs or advocacy groups that run CPCs.

To give you some context to this myth that pro-life groups are "wealthy", the ten pro-life charities the pro-abortion author refers to, received a total of $365,028 in one year of government funding. On the other hand, the pro-abortion Action Canada for Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights, received a whopping $3,003,355 from government funding in one year. And that's for only one pro-abortion organization, not ten. I've written before about the billions the pro-abortions receive in government funding.

The pro-abortion author's next vexatious attack:

"When the pandemic arrived in 2020, the Liberal government launched the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy program (CEWS) to give financial relief to employers so they could retain and pay their staff. A total of 53 anti-choice groups received CEWS funding, including 35 CPCs. 

In fall 2020, ARCC submitted a petition with over 11,000 signatures asking the government to stop and rescind the funding, 200 and change the program’s criteria to match the Canada Summer Jobs new criteria. The government was non-responsive to the petition and all requests. The CEWS program ended in August 2021.

It seems that once again, CRA did not act on these frivolous, vexatious, unfounded and frankly, ridiculous complaints.

"Given the results of this study, we recommend that CPCs in Canada be regulated in order to better public health and respect the rights of patients seeking healthcare. We specifically recommend that CPCs: be required to disclose their anti-choice and religious stance be stopped from providing unregulated medical services such as ultrasounds, not be publicly funded be removed from referral lists used by legitimate medical facilities, have their charitable tax status revoked for those that are charities,be stopped from teaching sex education in public schools, and not be allowed to place misleading advertising in public."

It wasn't enough to complain to CRA over and over again, the pro-abortions want nothing less than to ensure that pregnancy care centres are unable at all to do the work they do so well.

Calling this a witch hunt is an understatement.

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.

Media buys into pro-abortion witch hunt of CPCs

Great rebuttal to Joyce Arthur's recent "study" (witch hunt) against crisis pregnancy centres in Canada.

I see that Anna Mehler Paperny of Global news has bought into Arthur's misinformation on CPC's.

Maybe they should instead educate themselves on Arthur's unrelenting campaign to discredit CPC's.