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.

Another student union discriminates against pro-life clubs

University student unions act in a cowardly way when it comes to pro-life clubs on campuses. They are also grossly intolerant of those who don't share their "pro-choice" opinions. They are also discriminatory. Not very nice adjectives for young people at a place of higher learning.

NEWS RELEASE: Students at Brandon University Sue their Student Union after Club Banned from Campus

Brandon, MB: Pro-life students at Brandon University have filed a lawsuit after having their club status withdrawn by their student union in November without warning. The Brandon University Student Union alleged that the pro-life stance made some students feel “uncomfortable” and “intimidated” them. The union also argued that the club’s beliefs were contrary to the Canadian Federation of Students’ official pro-choice stance, and that the club itself was redundant because other campus groups (the LGBTQ Collective and the Women’s Collective) addressed the issue of abortion.

The club is not unfamiliar with censorship, as this is not the first time they have had to resort to legal aid in order to regain their official club status. “Our student union claims to serve students and support them in their efforts to share their passions and advocate for various causes,” states Catherine Dubois, president of Brandon University Students for Life, “However, over the past 4 years our club has been repeatedly censored and denied these opportunities offered to every other student. We are tired and frustrated with being treated in such a discriminatory manner.”

“It is unacceptable that a student on a university campus should have to resort to a court challenge to ensure they can enjoy the same freedoms as their peers on campus,” states Anastasia Pearse, Executive Director of National Campus Life Network, an organization dedicated to supporting post-secondary pro-life students, “It is disconcerting that campuses in our country are choosing to censor controversial issues rather than allow for open dialogue and debate.”

Currently, four other lawsuits initiated by pro-life student clubs are working their way through courts across the country. This is the highest number of lawsuits regarding campus free speech issues to be filed by pro-life clubs within a one-year period. The other universities include Ryerson University, the University of Toronto Mississauga, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, and the University of Alberta.

“Abortion is an issue that personally affects women of the university age,” states Pearse, “we believe that women deserve to know everything about this procedure, even if the information makes people feel uncomfortable. Universities should not be afraid to accommodate opposing views on important and even controversial issues. With over 250 abortions occurring every day in Canada, this is a conversation that students ought to be having.”

For further information:

Anastasia Pearse
Executive Director, National Campus Life Network
director@ncln.ca
604-365-3484

Catherine Dubois, Brandon University Students for Life
204-570-1710 or duboiscm52@brandonu.ca

–33–

National Campus Life Network