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’?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
