$1,272,679 spent to help you to be an "ally" to 2SLGBTQI+

I did an ATIP to find out just how much of our tax dollars went to the the Unity Campaign courtesy of the Department for Women and Gender Equality (WAGE). 

What is the Unity campaign? I am so glad you asked:

The Unity campaign sets out to create a more inclusive future for everyone, including Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, and other sexually and gender diverse (2SLGBTQI+) people.

Help advance equality by recognizing stigma, debunking misinformation, and supporting 2SLGBTQI+ communities.

WAGE spent at least $1,272,679.28 on the campaign. I say at least, because of the other internal costs buried in the department's day to day operations, like salaries of employees, other professional services contracts, etc. :

The contracts identified were awarded specifically for activities related to the Unity campaign, including services such as marketing, communications, and video production. The department also made use of existing department-wide communications and professional services contracts that supported a range of departmental priorities and initiatives. Expenditures under these broader contractual vehicles were not tracked or coded exclusively to the Unity campaign, and consequently the department cannot accurately determine the proportion of those contract values that supported the campaign. Accordingly, the contract values disclosed represent only those contracts directly attributable to the Unity campaign and may not reflect all expenditures incurred in support of the initiative.

Salary expenditures are not specifically tracked for this initiative, as employees support multiple departmental programs, projects, priorities and operational activities as part of their regular responsibilities.

The contracts went to:

P2400057 Cossette Communication Inc. for $988,156.83

P2500116 Essencemediacom Canada ULC $96,570.97

P2600035 Essencemediacom Canada ULC $132,796.48

P2600037 M5 Marketing Communications Inc. $51,030

P2700019 Essencemediacom Canada ULC $4,125

 

• P2400057: https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/record/wage%2CC-2023-2024-Q2-00004
• P2500116: https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/record/wage%2CC-2024-2025-Q3-00014
• P2600035: https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/record/wage%2CC-2025-2026-Q2-00005
• P2600037: https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/record/wage%2CC-2025-2026-Q2-00007
• P2700019: https://search.open.canada.ca/contracts/record/wage%2CC-2026-2027-Q1-00010

Here are the videos that were produced with your tax dollars for this campaign. I count six of them.

https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/campaigns/unity/stories.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/campaigns/unity/resources.html

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).

 

Canada pours more money into abortion

The gazillions of dollars Canada already spends on abortion isn't enough. Yesterday the government announced spending of another $13 million.

Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, Project: Access for All, Funding: $2,821,500

Birth Mark, Project: Reproductive Health Equity Project, Funding: $558,675

Canadian Association of Community Health Centres, Project: The Sexual and Reproductive Health-National Project, Funding: $339,658

Canadian Association of Science Centres, Project: Working Together Against Misinformation: Sharing Knowledge and Building Community Capacity to Address Sexual Reproductive Health Misinformation, Funding: $747,870

Canadian Paediatric Society, Project: Comprehensive sexual health care for adolescents: An online course for health care providers, Funding: $307,606

Canadian Pharmacists Association, Project: Pharmacist Toolkit Addressing Sexual and Reproductive Health Care of Indigenous and Two-Spirit Patients, Funding: $403,602

Canadian Society for the Advancement of Gynaecologic Excellence Inc. (CanSAGE), Project: Strengthening Endometriosis Care Through Tailored Education: The Development and Launch of CanSAGE's Endometriosis Care Education Program, Funding: $496,738

Community-Based Research Centre, Project: Confronting HPV-related Cancer Care Challenges for 2S/LGBTQIA+ People, Funding: $535,863

DisAbled Women's Network of Canada (DAWN Canada), Project: Foundations for Sexual and Reproductive Health (The Foundations Project), Funding: $886,979

Egale Canada, Project: Intersex Person-Centered Care Learning for Health Care Professionals, Funding: $260,838

Northern Birthwork Collective under the care of MakeWay Charitable Society, Project: Abortion Support Program, Funding: $171,854

Support Network for Indigenous Women & Women of Colour (SNIWWOC), Project: Bridging Gaps in Sexual and Reproductive Health Care: A Holistic Approach for Racialized Communities, Funding: $442,713

The University of British Columbia (Stigma and Resilience Among Vulnerable Youth Centre), Project: For Youth Like Me: Sexual Health Education Tailored for Diverse 2SLGBTQ+ Youth and Parents, Funding: $451,088

The University of British Columbia (Contraception & Abortion Research Team - CART), Project: The CART Access project: Advancing access to abortion for under-served populations through tools for healthcare professionals and people seeking care, Funding: $4,387,931

Yukon Status of Women Council, Project: Connecting Data and Decisions: Improving Abortion Access in the Yukon, Funding: $332,689

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.

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.

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 4

So what evidence did I find of "misinformation" from Pregnancy Care Centres in this ATIP? Well, none so far. (I've only looked at the the second half of the ATIP).

On page 73 we have an example of "misinformation" provided by Joyce Arthur. This can be safely ignored as Arthur's evidence of Pregnancy Care centres misinformation has been refuted many times.

Then there is this statement by the NDP; can also be safely ignored because it's just the NDP parroting Joyce Arthur.

Pages 199-282 are US legal cases on "misinformation".  

So there are lots of pages of attempts to justify "misinformation". There are lots of redacted information. The government is clearly looking for reasons (and doing cartwheels) to get ammunition to persecute and target pregnancy care centres for "misinformation". But other than Joyce Arthur and NDP MPP Leah Gazan's claims of misinformation, I could not find any actual evidence or proof of Canada's pregnancy care centres indulging in "misinformation".

ATIP to Finance: revoking charitable status to Pregnancy Care Centres Part 2

The exchange below between Leah Gazan and Chrystia Freeland also appeared in my ATIP to Finance. Gazan who is an NDP MPP asks Freeland about the removal of charitable funding from anti-abortion charities. I especially appreciate this part of her question that says:

(b) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; and (c) on what dates were the meetings in (b) held?

True to form for this currently prorogued government, Freeland doesn't answer the question. In fact Freeland's answer to MPP Gazan is the same response she has given to people who write to her.

And now Ms. Freeland is running for the leadership of the Liberal party. Yikes.

Next we have Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue unable to answer the question either. At least she says she can't answer the question. As we all know now, they have changed their tactic of witch hunting pro-life charities, into instead Protecting reproductive freedom by preventing abuse of charitable status. 

Concerns have been raised that some registered charities that offer reproductive health services to women, including pregnancy options counselling, may be spreading misinformation by presenting themselves as neutral, full-service pregnancy support service organizations 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 anti-choice organizations are restricting the rights of vulnerable pregnant women to choose the reproductive care appropriate to them and their circumstances.

"Concerns... misinformation...concealing". No proof. No evidence. Just false allegations based on nothing. Again. 

Question No.874—

Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the commitment in the Liberal Party’s 2021 election platform to no longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations, such as crisis pregnancy centres: (a) what consultation processes has the government established to define an anti-abortion organization; (b) what stakeholders and interested parties have government representatives met with since September 21, 2021; and (c) on what dates were the meetings in (b) held?

Links & Sharing

Question No.874—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

December 2nd, 2022 / 12:20 p.m.

University—RosedaleOntario

Liberal

Chrystia Freeland Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

Mr. Speaker, the Income Tax Act does not define the concept of charity but relies on the common law definition. Under the common law, charitable purposes fall under one of four categories: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community in a way the courts have determined to be charitable, for example, the protection of the environment or the promotion of health.

Canadian tax incentives for charitable donations are considered to be amongst the most generous in the world. Given this generosity and other tax privileges provided to charities, organizations that choose to register as charities are required to follow a particular set of rules set out in the Income Tax Act. These rules are primarily designed to ensure that donated funds are used for charitable purposes, protecting public trust in the charitable sector as a whole.

All registered charities are required to ensure that the information that they provide is accurate and evidence-based, and are prohibited from disseminating information that is false or misleading.

Our government remains committed to no longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations that provide dishonest counselling to women about their rights and about the options available to them at all stages of a pregnancy.

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Leah Gazan Winnipeg Centre, MB

With regard to the charitable status of anti-abortion organizations in Canada, broken down by province or territory and fiscal year, since 2015-16: (a) how does the government define what an anti-abortion organization is; and (b) how many organizations have received or maintained charitable status while meeting the definition in (a)?

Links & Sharing

Question No.875—Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:20 p.m.

Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-MadeleineQuébec

Liberal

Diane Lebouthillier Minister of National Revenue

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, as the federal regulator of registered charities, the CRA is responsible for making sure charities comply with the requirements of the Income Tax Act and common law. While the CRA is responsible for administering policy once implemented, it is not the CRA’s role to develop tax policy. As such, while the CRA is prepared to administer any new rules that are implemented and to provide relevant guidance to the charitable sector, the CRA is currently unable to respond in the manner requested.

Thanks to Kelsi Sheren and Jordan Peterson: drowning with MAID

As I've mentioned before, Dying with Dignity has a very close relationship with the End of Life care division of Health Canada. They advise the Health Minister, and email the department regularly.

Besides Health Canada they also lobby the Justice department, and have done so since at least 2020, with a documented 115 monthly lobby reports. They lobby MPs, senators, ministers, government whips, the PMO's office, bureaucrats, basically anyone with a pulse.

So...remember when Kelsi Sheren told Jordan Peterson about the The Horrifying Truth Behind MAID They Aren't Telling You, based on testimony of Dr Joel Zivot? As in, people are drowning when they are MAIDed?

Well it seems that Helen Long of Dying with Dignity fame went a bit apoplectic when people started calling her about this (My recent ATIP for DWDC):

'Hi,

As I'm sure you're aware the misinformation (that hardly seems like enough of a word) about drugs used in the MAID process in Canada and the way they are experienced by patients is out of control. I'm sure you've seen the clip REDACTED and there have been numerous articles circulating. REDACTED got this request this morning indicating things are becoming more far reaching and skewed than ever. We've been getting quite a few calls and REDACTED mentioned that they are having patients express fear and concern to clinicians because of this inaccurate information. (emphasis added)

I'm wondering if Health Canada (as the regulator) is considering adding additional information regarding the drugs or some kind of fact check regarding the REDACTED comments to their website or releasing some kind of statement? Can you tell me if there have been any discussions with comms?

Happy to have a quick call if that's helpful. I can be reached at REDACTED

Best,

Helen

Helen Long (she/her)'

I hope patients are expressing fear and concern about letting the likes of the pro-deathers kill them. That is good news. Thankfully Health Canada doesn't appear to act on Helen Long's panic letter.

'Hi Helen,

Thanks for flagging. We are still having discussions regarding what we are able to address and how. Unfortunately material such as podcasts (that you forwarded earlier) and challenging to address since they are opinion pieces essentially. Also, we don't want to bring additional attention to that type of material.

Appreciate you continuing to keep me in the loop.

Thanks,

Here is Dr Joel Zivot's submission to the Senate on February 8, 2021. Dying with Dignity debunks Dr Zivot's testimony. Of course they do. I encourage readers to read his testimony yourselves and be your own judge as to whether or not people drown when receiving MAID.

Note: Dr. Zivot discusses the three MAID drugs that DYDC also confirms are used for MAID.

Finance committee biased against pro-life charities

Action Canada for Sexual Health & Rights said this in their submission for the PRE-BUDGET CONSULTATIONS IN ADVANCE OF THE 2025 BUDGET: 

'In Canada, anti-abortion organizations use misleading information in an attempt to dissuade people from seeking safe abortion and some politicians are promoting disinformation regarding sexuality education and gender-affirming care.' 

This misinformation and disinformation from ACSHR resulted in this recommendation from the Report of the Standing Committee on Finance:

'Recommendation 429: No longer provide charitable status to anti-abortion organizations.'

ACSHR makes unproven and already debunked allegations about pro-life charities, and this results in the Standing Committee on Finance recommending that pro-life charities lose their charitable status. Is this for real? Did the committee verify these allegations? Did they do any checking at all on the validity of these claims? Because if they did they would have learned that any disinformation and misinformation comes from the pro-abortion side of the divide.

Unbelievably, this committee is willing to recommend that an entire sector of charities lose their charitable status, based on untruths. These falsehoods come from an organization that has received millions of dollars in government grants, all the while Pro-life charities receive no government grants.

And should a charity that receives millions, be allowed to lobby the government to remove the charitable status from another charity? Is this ethical? Or are ethics not important anymore?

Removing the charitable status from pro-life organizations, based on unproven allegations from another charity, who themselves receive millions in government funding, and who have a long history of attacking pro-life groups with the help of these government grants, should bear some pretty serious scrutiny. But no, pro-life people and charities have endured bias from the pro-abortions and this Liberal government for nine long years.

Why aren't abortion clinics called out for misinformation?

This is a huge double standard. Pro-abortion organizations get away with misinformation by not being honest about what an abortion actually is. They are masters of double-speak.

So once again I wrote to Chrystia Freeland.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Minister Freeland,

My letter below was sent to you almost two years ago. I still have not received a reply from you.

There has been a lot in the news lately about Pregnancy Care Centres and how your government wants them to explicitly say they don't offer abortions and that they spread misinformation. 

I would like to know if you will also investigate pro-choice charities and their misinformation tactics? I have given you examples in my letter below and I can assure you that you will find many more examples if you cared to look for them. 

To single out just one type of charity for this aggressive treatment based on absolutely no evidence, especially since these charities receive virtually no government funding at all, appears to be quite an obvious double standard. In fact one would think that the pro-choice charities which do receive millions and millions of dollars in grant money should be scrutinized a lot more.

Surely you see the problem here Minister?

I look forward to hearing back from you soon. 

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below I summarize the misinformation that I detailed in my first letter to Chrystia Freeland, a letter that she never answered. And now we learn that the pro-abortion attack dogs are wreaking their havoc on Pregnancy Care Centres because of alleged 'misinformation'. 

1) DE&E abortion. Pro-abortion description from Vancouver Island Women's Clinic: There is no actual description of the 'procedure'. The word 'procedure' is used 11 times, but what the 'procedure' is, is never explained. They use the word 'tissue' instead of fetus or preborn child or child in the womb. This is misinformation.

Here is an accurate description of a D&E abortion (ie 'procedure'). 'The doctor uses a speculum to open the woman's vagina, making her cervix visible. A tube is inserted into her uterus, by which all amniotic fluid is suctioned out. Using forceps, the fetus is then dismembered and extracted in pieces. After the extraction, suction and curettage ensure that the uterus is completely emptied. An ultrasound is commonly used to confirm that the abortion is complete.' (emphasis added)

2) CARE Program, BC Women's Hospital & Health Centre: Also uses the word 'procedure' and again the 'procedure' is never defined. They use the words 'contents of the uterus' instead of fetus or preborn child or child in the womb. This is misinformation.

3) Options for Sexual health: Again they use the word 'procedure' and 'contents of the uterus'. Ditto above.

Having a 'procedure' to remove 'tissue' is misinformation on a grand scale Chrystia Freeland. Please direct your witch hunt to where it rightly belongs.

Joyce Arthur: Justin Trudeau's closest advisor?

"Hon. Marci Ien (Minister for Women and Gender Equality and Youth, Lib.):  

    Mr. Speaker, our message is clear. The right to an abortion and access to abortion go hand in hand, yet there are a growing number of anti-choice pregnancy crisis centres that use deceptive tactics to deter women from making informed decisions and to make choices about their reproductive health. (emphasis added)

     That is why today I introduced a motion to require more transparency from these centres providing pregnancy counselling. Organizations that do not clearly or prominently provide this information to clients risk losing their charitable status. This is about holding them accountable. This is about supports on which women can rely."

I am tired of the untrue allegations and misinformation that pours out of Liberal mouths and pro-abortion advocates regarding crisis pregnancy centres. My many ATIPs show zero evidence to support these false allegations that Pregnancy Care Centres use 'deceptive tactics'. Joyce Arthur seems to be the source of this misinformation, as she writes obsessively and incessantly to politicians about her flavour of the month abortion causes, and Pregnancy Care Centres are at the top of her list. Her witch hunt against these centres started in 2010 when she received a $27,400 grant to write a horrific report slandering these centres that help women through crisis pregnancies. 

Arthur's fabrications have been rebutted time and time again by myself and by others, but she keeps repeating them. And Justin Trudeau and his pro-abortion MPs are more than happy to parrot Arthur.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2024/02/canadian-government-cant-justify-its.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2024/06/unredacted-atip-reveals-abortion.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/12/i-understand-that-liberal-party-is-pro.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/05/atip-reveals-no-records-to-support.html

https://run-with-life.blogspot.com/2022/06/liberal-forward-for-everyone-liberal.html

Notice Marci Ien's use of the derogatory term 'anti-choice' to refer to pro-life people. Marci, your bias is showing.  

Blind guides all of them.

Hiding government abortion spending

I think we can file this blog under the title misinformation. Or maybe sneaky. Or how about, we are spending your tax dollars on abortion and don't want you to find it where we publish all other government spending?

I have done a lot of research using the Grants and Contributions database for things like 'reproductive health', 'pride', 'LGBTQetc'. That's how I learn how our tax dollars are being spent on Justin Trudeau's favourite ideologies. 

Then there's this: Faculty of Medicine researchers have received $3.8 million from the Government of Canada to address barriers to abortion access for underserved populations. 

But when I went to look in the G&C database to see this funding, I couldn't find it listed. I tried numerous combinations of words, but no, the funding wouldn't show up. So I then contacted the program itself. They said:

"The research project you reference is funded by the Government of Canada’s Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund. You can learn more about the fund in the federal government’s news release for this funding. If you have any questions about the Sexual and Reproductive Health Fund, we recommend contacting the Government of Canada."

So down the rabbit hole I went, emailing the Minister of Health, the Deputy Minister, and others. Finally I got a response. I received two links: Initial Funding | Renewal of Funding to the G&C database. (I didn't even know about the second one). The first one is for $3,833,486 and the second one for $1,287,991 for a total of $5,121,477.

Now please take careful note of the description of this funding in the G&C database:

"Description: To support the federal government’s commitment to maintain a strong and effective publicly funded health care system through investments in emerging and demonstrated innovations in priority areas, such as palliative and end-of-life care, home and community care, mental health care and other federal, provincial-territorial and emerging priorities."

There is nothing about addressing barriers to abortion access for underserved populations. In fact, what has palliative care and end-of-life have to do with abortion access? No wonder I couldn't find the funding. 

So what other abortion funding is Justin Trudeau hiding in the G&C database?

Unredacted ATIP reveals abortion advocate's disinformation

It is interesting what gets hidden in an ATIP. Usually of course you have no idea what they are hiding because the hidden information is redacted. But recently I had occasion to ask for two different ATIPs about the Abortion Rights Coalition that were about a year apart. I received some duplicate information from them. The first one contained certain redacted information that the second one did not redact. 

The unredacted information revealed that the redacted info from the first ATIP, was ARCC telling their usual unrelenting falsehoods about pregnancy care centres.

This is the text that was redacted from the first ATIP from a letter from ARCC to the Minister of Health on April 4, 2018:

"...Further, it would help to dispel harmful myths about abortion and mitigate the effects of misinformation spread by anti-choice groups. Over 290 anti-choice groups exist across Canada, including about 165 “crisis pregnancy centres” (CPCs)....Most agencies have websites or do other public outreach, and all provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma. Further, CPCs often mislead or scare women seeking abortion while advocacy groups seek to recriminalize abortion, which would violate women's charter rights."

Redacted information about CPCs

Unredacted information on CPCs

Two questions. 

1) Why was this information redacted from the first ATIP? The three Information Act clauses cited don't seem pertinent (19 (1), 20 (1) (c), 20 (1) (b.1)) to the redaction. And if they should have been redacted, why weren't they in the second ATIP?

2) Were the bureaucrats embarrassed (as they should be) when they saw this disinformation about pregnancy care centres, so they redacted "all [CPCs] provide misinformation about abortion and work to reinforce stigma"?

Here is another statement from meeting notes ARCC had with MP Don Davies from July 4, 2017 that was redacted from the first ATIP, but not the second ATIP:

"...The idea is to have a central, reliable place that women can go to, mitigating the effects of misinformation provided by "crisis pregnancy centres" and anti-choice groups."

More libelous nonsense.

(Here's a true statement no one can argue with, and is definitely not a lie: All abortion clinics kill babies.)

Fun Fact: My first ATIP took them 442 days to process and contained 11 pages. The second one took 396 days to process and contained 20 pages and produced similar information as the first. Don't let anyone ever tell you that ATIPs are ever processed in 30 days.

19 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the head of a government institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Part that contains personal information.

• 20 (1) (c) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to result in material financial loss or gain to, or could reasonably be expected to prejudice the competitive position of, a third party; or

• 20 (1) (b.1) information that is supplied in confidence to a government institution by a third party for the preparation, maintenance, testing or implementation by the government institution of emergency management plans within the meaning of section 2 of the Emergency Management Act and that concerns the vulnerability of the third party’s buildings or other structures, its networks or systems, including its computer or communications networks or systems, or the methods used to protect any of those buildings, structures, networks or systems