Government of Canada buys into misinformation about Crisis Pregnancy Centres

According to a recent ATIP I did, the government of Canada says that Crisis Pregnancy Centres:

disseminate abortion myths to pregnant individuals in crisis...Research by XXXXXX (probably Joyce Arthur) and colleagues of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (2023) has consistently found that in presenting information, these groups fail to explicitly disclose their religious agenda and anti-abortion sentiments. CPCs spread false medical information...

For the record, I and others have consistently found that ARCC's reports are full of misinformation and disinformation. (see links below for these rebuttals)

My ATIP to Health Canada:

"What evidence does the Public Health Agency have to issue a warning that "Crisis pregnancy centres ... often look like clinics or support centres, but they are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion"? Also please provide me with your evidence that Crisis pregnancy centres "are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion" (emphasis added)

The government of Canada has also posted statements on their official websites based on these untruths.

From Health Canada's website:

Crisis pregnancy centres

Crisis pregnancy centres are usually run by anti-abortion organizations. They often look like clinics or support centres, but they are designed to discourage people from getting an abortion. (emphasis added)

From the department of Finance we have this statement:

concerns have been raised that some registered charities that offer reproductive health services to women, including pregnancy options counselling—and that are provided federal supports under the tax system—may be spreading misinformation by presenting themselves as a neutral, full-service pregnancy support service organization, 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 organizations, known as crisis pregnancy centres, are restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women to choose the reproductive care appropriate to them and their circumstances...According to the Abortion Rights Coalition, there are about 157 anti-choice crisis pregnancy centres in Canada, of which 90.5 per cent are operated by registered charities. (emphasis added)

My ATIP identifies ARCC's reports that spread myths about Crisis Pregnancy Centres, and all of these reports are used as the government's "evidence" against CPCs. These myths have been refuted many times. Yet still the lies are spread and our Canadian government buys into them. The ATIP also references studies from the United States, based on the American experience of CPCs, which of course have nothing to do with the Canadian experience, so these references can be and should be ignored.

Did the government of Canada make any effort at all to read the reports that refute the mythical allegations of the pro-abortion idealogues? There is not one word in the ATIP that would confirm that they did.

Below are the links the government of Canada has chosen to ignore about Crisis Pregnancy Centres preferring to take the word of the pro-abortions.

Part 1 - Pro-abortion report - anti-Christian hate speech?

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

ABORTION RIGHTS COALITION OF CANADA DECEITFUL ON CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES A Critique to ARCC’s “Review of Crisis Pregnancy Centre Websites in Canada”

October 2022 Pregnancy Care Centres in Canada:  A Necessary Rebuttal 

Crisis Pregnancy Centres In British Columbia A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report 

CPCs a target for calumny -- they won't refer for abortion refutes this Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Canada and Reproductive Justice Organizations’ Responses (Li references the Abortion Rights Coalition numerous hit jobs on CPCs. Of course she does.)

Slides from ATIP repeating the misinformation and disinformation from the pro-abortion ARCC

The Cart Access Project from a slide show: Page 413 Beware of Fake clinics...Crisis pregnancy centres ... actively mislead patients (For the record CART received tax payer funding of $4,387,931).

 

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.

"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.

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.