"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 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.

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.

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?