OTTAWA — Federal New Democrats are criticizing the Liberals’ plan to allow charities that offer pregnancy counselling to keep their tax status if they advertise that their services exclude abortion — a move that differs from what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had promised during the last federal election.
In 2021, Trudeau ran on a platform that included a promise to “no longer provide charity status to anti-abortion organizations” that offer what it called “dishonest counselling to women” about their options when it comes to pregnancy.
It specifically named what are known as crisis pregnancy centres, which operators say support vulnerable women, including by providing information about alternatives to abortion such as adoption, but that critics warn pose a risk because they are run by charities that oppose the procedure and use deceptive tactics.
More than three years after first promising to take action, the Liberals unveiled a plan this week to legislate changes to the Income Tax Act to make it a rule that charities providing this type of counselling must disclose to the public that they do not provide abortion services or birth control, nor make referrals.
Failing to do so could mean losing their charitable tax status, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland and Women and Gender Equality Minister Marci Ien warned.
Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, which had been pushing the government to take action, said they were informed last week that some changes would be coming to the government’s initial promise.
“It is a bit different. They’ve adjusted it to be a bit of a softer approach,” she says.
Arthur, who supports the legislation, said she believes the government amended it to reduce the risk of ending up in court for potentially violating anyone’s Charter rights.
“We don’t want this struck down … so I think it is a good balance that they struck.”
Ien’s office did not directly respond to questions about the change. Instead, a spokeswoman said the plan ensures women are provided with “accurate and truthful information” when seeking health-care services, which fulfills its campaign commitment.
“We cannot let tax-assisted organizations put up barriers to information and access to care,” Sarah Thomas said in a statement.
Charity tax lawyer Adam Aptowitzer said the Liberals’ initial proposal would have been difficult to implement on a political level because cutting out a certain type of organization from receiving tax benefits would have ignited a debate on which groups deserve them, which the country has not seen in nearly 100 years.
Meghan Doherty, a director at Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights, another organization that has called on officials to take action, chalked the change up to the government weighing the reality of having to enforce such a measure.
“It can be challenging to figure out how to do this in a practical way,” she said. “This is actually a good solution and a first step in addressing the harms that misinformation and dissuading people from accessing care that they are perfectly entitled to access.”
She said her organization has heard a range of concerns about these centres, from women feeling pressured to carry a pregnancy to term, to having their access to an abortion delayed because of receiving incorrect information.
New Democrats are already looking at ways to try to change the bill, which has yet to be debated in the House of Commons.
“Under the Liberals’ plan, these anti-choice centres will still receive charitable status as long as they disclose that they don’t provide abortions,” Winnipeg MP Leah Gazan, the party’s critic for women and gender equality, said in a statement.
“This won’t stop them from spreading misinformation and lies about abortion to pregnant people which puts their health and well being further at risk. This must be stopped and not bolstered by the government.”
Thomas said the Canada Revenue Agency would play an important role when it comes to enforcement and suggested NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh would have some explaining to do if his progressive party were to oppose it.
Laura Lewis, a medical doctor and executive director of Pregnancy Care Canada, a Christian charity with 80 affiliated pregnancy counselling centres operating across Canada, said that after the last election they sent letters asking the government what it meant by cracking down on what it called “dishonest counselling.”
“What does dishonest counselling look like, what is dishonest information and who determines that?” Lewis asked. “I think at this point dishonesty is an opinion that’s different from their opinion.
“This is about what does it look like to live in a diverse nation with different worldviews.”
She believe the change in approach is the result of a Liberal platform that was “very vague” and had “too many holes.”
Lewis added the organization has asked to meet to discuss its proposal. She also expressed an openness to ensuring they operate transparently, which she defended that centres already do.
She believes the Liberals are criticizing their work with “false labels” because of ideological differences, and are advancing the legislation to drive a wedge with the Conservatives ahead of a federal election that must happen within the next year.
A spokesman for Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre accused Trudeau of being “desperate” to draw attention away from two dozen of his MPs calling for him to resign, noting Poilievre has committed not to legislate against abortion should Conservatives form the next government.
Sebastian Skamski did not provide the Conservatives’ position on the bill when asked about it by the National Post. Instead, he said Conservatives will study it when it comes up in Parliament.
Poilievre has previously said that Conservatives oppose the Liberals’ plan to strip crisis pregnancy centres of their charitable tax status, with several of his MPs, including former leadership rival and Ontario MP Leslyn Lewis, having promised in the past to fight against the move.
Aptowitzer said the proposal could carry important implications for the charity sector because the government is looking at breaking up the rules based on the services an organization provides, from its current one-size-fits all approach.
“Obviously it’s a hot button issue,” he says, “but at a deeper level, it speaks to what we might be able to look at in the charitable sector as a whole, and that has both positive and negative implications.”
National Post
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our politics newsletter, First Reading, here.