Big donors to Dying with Dignity

Guess who is donating to Dying with Dignity? 

"As a charitable organization, Dying With Dignity Canada would not exist nor have the impact it does were it not for the generous contributions of all our donors and supporters. We would like to acknowledge a group of supporters to whom we owe an enormous debt of gratitude."

Just some of the corporate donors. There are 65 pages of donors, most are individuals.

• Bell
• Google
• Google Ad
• Great Toronto Airport Authority
• Healthcare Excellence Canada
• Hospice Greater Saint John  
• MAiD Family Support Society
• Microsoft
• Rogers
• Telus
• United Way East Ontario
• Vancouver Island Mental Health

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 3

Excerpts from letters sent to Chrystia Freeland regarding Pregnancy Care Centres. There is a lot more thought and common sense put into these letters than what was put into Justin Trudeau's decision to go after pro-life charities.

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

My first concern is that the Liberal government appears to demonstrate prejudice and bias in targeting pregnancy care centers as examples of providing dishonest counselling regarding women's rights and choices for a crisis pregnancy.

Secondly, you disregard the tremendous volunteer support crisis pregnancy centers provide women in order to offer real choice, with complete information about these choices and the impact they may have on a woman's life.

Finally, the proposed amendment demonstrates biased, values-based influence by a government that infringes on my values and right to choose which charities I wish to support. 

But just who will determine, on the government's behalf, what information is deemed dishonest and what information is evidence-based and accurate? What scientific and/or legal experts will be engaged, without bias? Why have you only targeted 'anti-abortion' charities and said nothing that states with equal clarity that abortion providers will face the same scrutiny? Can you point to any published guide (such as the one Pregnancy Care provides) that abortion providers give to every woman who seeks an abortion, to be certain these women fully understand their options?

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

We are concerned, however, that contrary to Charter protections of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression, organizations may be singled out simply because they hold particular underlying beliefs about abortion and when life begins.

There is a lack of data about what specific problem or problems this change is intended to address. We ask that before any process of legislative or regulatory change is undertaken, there is research, clarification and public communication about the specific problems that are spurring the change. The need for new policy or legislation should be clearly stated and based on evidence.

Part of clarifying the problem to be addressed includes identifying the gaps in the existing system. New legislation or regulation is only needed if the current system is inadequate or unable to address the problem. The CRA has robust regulatory and compliance measures to address issues in the charitable sector. These measures focus on education and bringing charities into compliance as a starting position. The mandate letter suggests a troubling shift away from an education and compliance-first approach. It is even more disturbing that such a change seems under consideration only for certain kinds of charities. We question what the justification could be for this significant change in approach.

Further, the terms in the mandate letter raise significant concerns about the Charter-compliance of such an initiative. The phrase "anti-abortion organizations" suggests that groups could be singled out for additional scrutiny and possible denial of charitable status simply on the basis of their beliefs about when life begins. The qualifier of "dishonest counseling" offers little assistance as it is neither defined nor explained. Rather, it seems very subjective and could make the government the arbiter of acceptable opinion or belief.

We are very concerned that participation in the public square and a level playing field with respect to government programs could be subject to a values test.

We ask that any policy or legislative changes follow the principles of procedural fairness and consistency. We ask that you consider carefully compliance with Charter protections of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Please be careful not to politicize the charitable sector. Canada has a diverse charitable sector that is permitted to hold opinions and views that differ from the government. If charitable status were to depend on alignment with the policy of any particular government, all charities - and Canada's vibrant charitable sector - would be at risk.

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

What exactly is the definition of “dishonest counseling” as expressed by Prime Minister Trudeau? Does Mr. Trudeau consider ALL pregnancy counseling OTHER THAN abortion counseling as “dishonest”?

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

Our Charter guarantees freedom of conscience, religious belief, and expression. No legitimate charity that operates with integrity should be called ‘dishonest’ because it disagrees with the government’s ideology. What are the criteria for the government’s definition of ‘dishonest counseling’? Is the pro-life position viewed as being ‘dishonest’?

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