Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights gets millions more in government funding

From the Lobbyist database for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights 

End date of the last completed financial year: 2025-06-30

List of Government Funding

Government Institution	Funding Received in Last Financial Year	Funding Expected in Current Financial Year
Global Affairs Canada (GAC)	$697,727.00	Yes
Health Canada (HC)	$1,316,065.00	Yes
Indigenous Services Canada (ISC)	$694,524.00	Yes
Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC)	$397,796.00	Yes
Women and Gender Equality (WAGE)	$242,922.00	Yes

This totals $3,349,034 (This is $124,939 less than what CRA reports, see below). But it does show which departments are forking out your money to them.

Employees who lobby for the organization

---

• Frederique Chabot, Executive Director
• Meghan Doherty, Co-Director Policy and Advocacy
• Brianna Parent Long, Policy & Advocacy Officer
• Ana Laura Zarco Fuentes, Policy & Advocacy Officer

Then there's the grants database, which is clearly not up-to-date. The first entry is for grants identified in 2024. Nothing shows for 2025.

From CRA for Fiscal period: July 01, 2024 to June 30, 2025: Government funding $3,473,973. 

CRA is my go to for the most accurate financial information for charities. 

Maybe one day we will see a pro-life charity get $3,473,973 in government funding. That. Would be. A miracle.

Pro-abortion culture starts with the Canadian government

Further to my last blog on Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, I have now received their funding information for 2024. Here is the updated spreadsheet for that funding.

Notice the steady increase in their total yearly funding (from all sources) from $906,281 in 2015 all the way up to $9,100,161 in 2024. In ten years Action Canada increased its funding ten fold, for its promotion and celebration of the dismembering, decapitation and disembowelment of children in the womb.

Pro-life charities receive virtually no funding from government grants. Pro-abortion charities receive millions upon millions every year from government grants. I believe that if these pro-abortion charities stopped receiving these lucrative government dollars, they would cease to exist. Our pro-abortion culture starts at the very top with the blessing of our government that uses Canadian citizen's taxes to fund this pro-death culture.

Take a look at the financials of any registered pro-life charity in CRA you can think of, and compare it to the likes of Action Canada's in CRA. The difference in financial statements is mind-boggling. No wonder Canada has such a deadly pro-abortion culture.

Finally, Action Canada only began receiving government grants in 2018, when their funding really started to take off. We can thank the Liberal government under Justin Trudeau for this. We can only assume Mark Carney (the alleged practicing Catholic) will continue this pro-death funding. 

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.

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.

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.

"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 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.

Liberal forward for everyone = Liberal backward for pro-life

I wrote this a while back regarding the Canadian Finance department: ATIP reveals no records to support revoking charitable status of CPCs.

I subsequently submitted another ATIP to CRA to see what they had on the same subject. What I received back from CRA revealed a couple of things.

First of all, it told me that CRA would not be doing anything about revoking the charitable status on pro-life organizations (good news). It isn't their job to. It is Finance's job. But CRA did receive numerous inquiries from the media regarding Justin Trudeau's hateful, discriminatory, mean-spirited, devoid of merit, desire to remove their charitable status. For example:

Question: In the Liberal Forward for Everyone platform the party committed to no longer providing charitable status to anti-abortion organizations. Can you please tell me what is the status of this commitment? Has your department been given any sort of timeline to implement this commitment? Do you have a list of charities that would potentially be impacted by this change and could you share it?

Proposed response: The confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act prevent the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) from commenting on specific cases. However, we can provide you with the following information. The CRA can only determine whether an activity of a charity is acceptable after it has fully considered the facts of a particular case based on common law. According to the common law, the promotion of health can be charitable. To be charitable, a purpose that promotes health must, as a general rule, directly prevent or relieve a physical or mental health condition by providing effective health care services or products to the public in a manner that meets applicable quality and safety requirements. For more information, see Guidance CG-021, Promotion of health and charitable registration.

If the CRA identifies that a charity is not complying with the requirements of the Act, the charity could be subject to a number of compliance actions, up to and including revocation. We encourage the public to report suspected non-compliance by registered charities to the National Leads Centre.

Note that the CRA cannot provide any feedback and/or update on leads received, or subsequent actions taken. CRA’s actions can only made public when they result in a charity being: •revoked, •annulled, •suspended

The CRA posts such cases in its List of charities. This provides transparency to Canadians regarding the decisions of the CRA with respect to charities.

Notice that these inquiries were referred back to Finance:

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) administers the legislative provisions under the Income Tax Act. However, any legislative changes to the Act are the responsibility of the Department of Finance Canada. As a result, the CRA cannot comment on any potential legislative changes. (emphasis added)

Okay. So clearly CRA will not do anything about Justin Trudeau's hateful, discriminatory, mean-spirited, devoid of merit, election promise. 

Similar responses to media are also made in the document.

Then this statement:

The IM Team is prepared to respond to further enquiries by referring to the Department of Finance. (emphasis added)

CRA is clearly referring these requests back to Finance. But as far as I know Finance had no records on this (as mentioned earlier).

Finally we see this statement:

The Department of Finance has asked for our views regarding the Liberal Platform commitment.

So Finance asked for CRA's views on Justin Trudeau's hateful, discriminatory, mean-spirited, devoid of merit desire, election promise. But my ATIP to Finance revealed no documents. How could there be no documents, when Finance is asking for input from CRA?

I have now asked the Department of Finance why my previous ATIP to them revealed nothing. I am still waiting for a response.

Something is definitely fishy in the State of Denmark.

NAF Canada rears its ugly head

The National Abortion Federation (NAF) registered in Canada as a "charity" in 2009. For 11 years NAF Canada's presence here had been pretty much non existent. Just check out their income statements at CRA.

The last time they reported to CRA in 2020, this was their income:

Receipted donations $45,000.00 (34.76%)
	Non-receipted donations $68,863.00 (53.19%)
	Gifts from other registered charities $0.00 (0.00%)
	Government funding $4,599.00 (3.55%)
	All other revenue $11,012.00 (8.51%)

Total revenue: $129,474.00

In 2020 NAF had one full time employee who earned $108,829, and one part-time employee who earned 6,945. Like all pro-abortion organizations, compensation is very lucrative when your business is supporting/engaged in the killing of children in the womb. That's 84% of their revenue going to one salary. Can you imagine a pro-life group using 84% of their income to pay someone that much money? No, I can't either.

Previous to 2020, their only government funding was for two summer job program grants ($4,854 in 2021 and $4,654 in 2020). (Why did an inactive company even need those two interns? But I digress.)

Well that's all changed now. NAF Canada just received $1,469,150 in government funding in March 2022. Because clearly Canada needed more pro-abortion advocacy groups. 

It will be sad to see how the baby killing industry continues to expand in Canada under Canada's most pro-abortion prime minister we've ever had. 

Oh, and let's watch and see how many more high paying pro-abortions will be added to the ranks of NAF Canada.

Stay tuned. I'm watching you NAF Canada.

Pro-abortions use tax dollars to lobby against pro-life Charter rights

Should a charity that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funded grants, be in the business of advocating for the repeal of Charter rights of pro-life organizations?

(Pro-life organizations receive $0 in taxpayer funded grants.)

This is what Sandeep Prasad of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights is trying to do. He wants to take away our Charter right to protest abortion.

"Every May, anti-choice protesters arrive in Ottawa for the "March for Life" -- the largest demonstration against the right to choose. 

This year, COVID-19 has cancelled this in-person event, like many others. But what will it take to cancel the "March for Life" for good?"

Since April when I last wrote about this pro-abortion organization, I learned that this goup received an additional $11 million dollars in new grant money. This brings their total grant money to date to over $14 million.

(It's not the first time this group has had a campaign against pro-life people. See also here and here).

(Notice the large discrepancy between what the government reports as grants to them, VS what they reported to CRA.)

Action Canada also has almost $2.5 Million in assets, including almost $1.5 million in the bank. Not bad.

Salaries for the people who advocate for abortion in this so-called "non-profit" are pretty lucrative as you can see.

Full statements for Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights here:

Financial statements

Government grants VS CRA reporting

These people eat a steady diet of going after pro-life groups. And they can do it because they receive millions of dollars in funding from Canadian taxpayers, including pro-life people. 

Pro-abortion Planned Parenthood Toronto received $11,448,591 from governments

Remember how the pro-abortions had their knickers in a twist about pro-life groups receiving $1.8 million from the Canada Summer Jobs Program? Well Planned Parenthood Toronto received over $11 million from governments. ($11,448,591 to be exact). That's one organization compared to 56 organizations.

Can you say 'Discrimination much'?

And look at what compensations are like for Planned Parenthood Toronto. Almost $3 million in one year. With the top pro-abort earning between $120,000 to $159,999. Compare that to say, the top gun at Toronto Right to Life who makes $39,999.  And receives no government funding.

What more can I say?

PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF TORONTO Reporting period ending: 2019-03-31

RIGHT TO LIFE ASSOCIATION OF TORONTO AND AREA Reporting period ending: 2019-03-31

Pro-abortion group mean-spirited and judgmental towards people of faith

Joyce Arthur and friends have been on quite the rampage against pro-life groups and Christian groups who receive money from the Summer Jobs program. 

Arthur's campaign comes along with some cartoonish graphic pictures. But what isn't funny, is the deceptions and misinformation perpetrated by Arthur's campaign. (See here for Arthur's previous false allegations against crisis pregnancy centres.)

Arthur has even taken it upon herself to report 44 of these SJP recipients to CRA. I'm pretty sure if CRA found any evidence of wrongdoing, they would deal with them--as they should. But I wonder what CRA might do if they decided these accusations were false, vexatious and maybe worse? And this isn't the first time Arthur has contacted CRA. In 2016 she reported several crisis pregnancy centres to CRA.

ICYMI ("in case you missed it"--I had to look this up). Is Arthur for real? She's been tweeting this nonsense for over a month now, non-stop. How could anybody miss her unabated attacks on these charities? (Except those charities like the Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver who are too busy doing the good work they do and don't have time to be worrying about Arthur's unfounded allegations.)

Anyway, I was wondering if these organizations were even aware of Arthur's campaign. So I contacted a few of them, and they were not aware.

You can read here the response I received from one group: the Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver.

In this letter, Brian Norton, Executive Director, responds to all of Arthur's questions/allegations. In particular he addresses her allegation that these groups discriminate against trans people:

"ARCC implies online that we may oppose “trans rights” and the LGBTQ community. 

Our charity is not political, we are pastoral. Unlike ARCC, we are non-discriminatory. 

ARCC as you know is quite vocal, mean-spirited, and judgmental towards people of faith, and towards people not necessarily espousing their ideology. 

In contrast to what ARCC is surmising, the clients we are entrusted to serve come from all lifestyles, gender identities, and sexual orientation. Coincidentally, two of our most recent sexually abused clients are transgender people. (Emphasis added)

The following value statement is from our Commitment of Care and Competence: 

“Clients are served without regard to race, colour, religion, creed, national origin, age, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, lifestyle or other arbitrary circumstances.”

For some reason Christian Advocacy Society of Greater Vancouver is particularly disliked by Arthur. I wonder why. Could it be because Arthur is jealous of the good work they do--they build up while she tears down?