Dear members of the Finance Committee,
I have a question for all of you regarding Recommendation 65 of your RECOMMENDATIONS OF THESTANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE FOR THE 2026 BUDGET:
"... Budget 2026 should also introduce amendments to the Income Tax Act to require greater transparency from anti-abortion pregnancy centres in order to mitigate harm to clients and prevent the misuse of charitable status."
I understand from the extensive research I have done on Pregnancy Care Centres, including numerous Access to Information requests I submitted, that the government of Canada bases these allegations of "harm to clients" and "the misuse of charitable status" on the say-so of the Abortion Rights coalition of Canada. (Note that none of these ATIPs I received revealed any evidence of these allegations outside of ARCC's allegations).
In other words, it appears that the government of Canada is biased and is basing important decisions that affect these charities on a group whose mission is, to repeatedly attack and libel these charities. ARCC has attacked these centres since at least since 2009 where Joyce Arthur (executive director of both groups) received $27,400 in government funding to kick off her initial blitzkrieg on these centres (using Arthur's previous organization the Pro-choice-Action Network). I, and others, have repeatedly rebutted these false claims (see links below).
Have any of you actually investigated and researched these centres yourself to corroborate that these centres harm clients and misuse their charitable status?
Because if you have not, and are taking ARCC's word for these allegations, with all due respect, you are agreeing to something very serious and not based on the truth.
I have a second question for you. I noticed that absent from your recommendations are recommendations from three Christian charities on the same subject. Why are their recommendations not included when you do include the scurrilous recommendations from ARCC? This looks like anti-Christian discrimination.
As ARPA stated in their submission to the committee:
"Previous calls to revoke the charitable tax status of pregnancy care centres ignore the benefits that these centres provide to women. At root, calls to revoke their charitable status are ideologically motivated attempts to marginalize a pro-life view with which they disagree." (emphasis added)
Here are the two extensively researched reports refuting the two "studies" Abortion Rights Coalition wrote attacking Pregnancy Care Centres:
(From Pregnancy Care Canada. Note that this rebuttal is based on the Pro-Choice Action Network's report which is the previous name for the Abortion Rights Coalition and headed by the same person) :
Crisis Pregnancy Centres In British Columbia A Respectful Rebuttal to a Disrespectful Report
My rebuttal to a subsequent ARCC report on these centres.
ABORTION RIGHTS COALITION OF CANADA DECEITFUL ON CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTRES
Here are the three recommendations from the three Christian charities that you chose not to include in your recommendations, in favour of ARCC's ideologically motivated attempt to marginalize a pro-life view with which they disagree.
ARPA
https://arpacanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/2026- Federal-Budget-Consultation. Christian Legal FellowshipCanadian Centre for Christian Charities
A recent example of Joyce Arthur's ongoing witch hunt against these clinics where she recycles her untruths about these centres. Just have a look at the title of her article:
Unregulated pregnancy centres cause lasting harms—we need transparency UPCs cause harm through deception, disinformation, and other traumatizing strategies meant to turn people away from abortion
I look forward to hearing back from the committee soon with answers to my questions.
Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney
Ottawa
.jpg)
