Fake pro-abortion ‘charities’ being scrutinized
|A new day has arrived for those of us who believe in the pro-life cause in Canada. We all remember the days when Human Life International had its charity status revoked for alleged political activity, while other pro-life groups were harassed by what is now known as the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency.
Well, it’s time to level the playing field. In recent months, I have been investigating the charitable tax status, lobbying efforts and political activities of pro-abortion organizations. If the CCRA conducts audits into official complaints that I have filed, there is a good chance that their charitable tax statuses will be reviewed and revoked.
The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health, formerly the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, (charity number 107848319 RR 0001) has recently had two documented complaints filed against it for “partisan activity.”
Partisan activity is defined by the government as conduct that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.” The complaints were for activities that took place during the years of 2004 and 2006.
Every registered charity in Canada must always report political activity and the amount it spent on that activity. Under the former Liberal government, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada was allowed to get away with not reporting political activity or the amount it spent on it. We’ll see if this is allowed to continue.
A complaint has been filed with the audit section of CCRA’s charities section over the fact this “charity” was not reporting political activity or the amount it spent on it.
In 1997, the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada (PPFC) received a planning grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. This charity money was to be spent to start a new NGO by the name of Action Canada for Population and Development (ACPD), an organization that would partake in partisan activity. At its founding, ACPD worked out of the offices of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada. Now, the use of charity money to get an advocacy organization started should be deemed an illegitimate charitable activity. I have filed a complaint over this activity.
The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health – formerly the PPFC – receives funding from both the Canadian International Development Agency and Health Canada. It is time the federal government stop giving taxpayers’ money to a charity that fails to follow the rules and regulations as laid down by the CCRA.
I have also investigated the activities of Canadians for Choice (charity number 864707864 RR 0001). It too has been involved in partisan activities. On its returns to the CCRA, it admits it partook in political activity, but failed to report the amount it spent on that activity.
This charity took part in partisan activity through its working relationship with Action Canada for Population and Development. In 2004, it was involved in a rally for “reproductive rights” in the nation’s capital, in which people were urged to vote against the Conservatives. (Interestingly, ACPD got money from the federal government, then in the hands of the Liberals, as well as from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.) At the time, Dr. Norman Bawin of Canadians for Choice has urged “pro-choice” voters to oppose the Conservatives because of the party’s supposed “hidden agenda” on abortion. In a press conference on Parliament Hill, Bawin cited as a particular threat to a woman’s “right” to abortion Rob Merrifield, an Alberta MP who supported “mandatory third party counselling.” Planned Parenthood was also involved in that press conference.
ACPD also has a section on its website, “Action Alert: Top 10 Reasons Not to Support the Conservative Party.” ACPD still receives funding from the federal government through the Canadian International Development Agency.
A documented complaint was filed against the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health and Canadians for Choice – two registered Canadian charities that seem to repeatedly flout the rules and regulations as laid down by the CCRA regarding partisan political activity.
A complaint was also filed regarding the statement, “Canadians for Choice and the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League worked hand-in-hand.” The complaint called for Canadians for Choice to be audited, with the inferrence that its charitable tax status be revoked.
In e-mail correspondence forwarded to me from a friend, Patricia LaRue, executive director of Canadians for Choice, admits her organization is continuing the work of CARAL. Noting that CARAL “closed its doors” in 2005 after “accomplish(ing) their mission of decriminalizing abortion in Canada,” several board members and staff from CARAL created Canadians for Choice “in order to work on improving reproductive choice in Canada” and focusing on “awareness-raising, education and research.”
Yet, Canadians for Choice says it is continuing specific projects of CARAL, including “an update of the 2003 CARAL access report.” While not specifically partisan, it raises questions about what other CARAL activities it is continuing.
Also, LaRue stated CARAL “closed its doors,” but according to Corporation Canada, it is still a registered corporation that filed papers and payed fees for 2006.
There is another problem with the timeline. LaRue implies that Canadians for Choice was created when some people associated with CARAL wanted to continue aspects of CARAL’s work after CARAL shut down. But Canadians for Choice has been a registered charity since July 1, 2003; CARAL shut down in 2005. As the complaint to the CCRA stated: “Why was an advocacy organization able to take control over a registered charity?” Or vice versa? And, “Why has (the CCRA) allowed this type of activity to continue?”
It is not difficult to find connections between the organizations. Anyone with a computer can do it. While researching this information, I discovered that the website of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, a (non-charitable) organization that advocates for abortion, is also the website of the registered charity Canadians for Choice. I have talked to officials at the CCRA and have been told that Canadians for Choice cannot allow the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League to use its website.
It is interesting to note that Canadians for Choice, the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League and Action Canada for Population and Development also share the same address, including suite number.
The Canadian Federation for Sexual Health and Canadians for Choice are both registered Canadian charities that do not to follow the rules and regulations as laid down by the CCRA.
In 1999, Human Life International was stripped of its charitable tax status when the federal government deemed its activities were partisan in nature. Certainly, if arguing against abortion is partisan, arguing for it is, too. Or is only one side of the argument “partisan”?