Ontario Health hides abortion information - Again

The Ontario government is again hiding abortion information from a freedom of information request I did. The last time they did this, we were forced to go to court. We won that case. 

Pretty sad that one must go to all that time and expense of a court case, just to practice your freedom of expression rights that you theoretically have, and that the army of government highly paid lawyers says nope, we don't want to let you have your rights. If you want them, then go to court.

Below is a copy of the letter I received that refused my request, and my request is also detailed in that refusal letter. 

And remember. If we hadn't fought my last case, Ontario would still not be getting accurate abortion numbers based on doctor's billing codes. They would still be hidden. Here is Justice Marc R. Labrosse's reasons for his decision last time. The Information Commissioner intervened in our case. It took no position on the outcome of our Application. Justice Labrosse was very clear in his decision, and it is a very enlightening read.

I am appealing their decision.

Here is that refusal letter.

Our File – Notre référence A-2024-00026 / FT

Dear Patricia Maloney:

I am replying to your access request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for the following information:

1) Please provide information on how abortion clinics in Ontario are inspected to ensure that they follow all regulations and compliance for health and safety requirements. Include how often inspections are performed.

2) Please provide information on the results of all compliance inspections for all abortion clinics in Ontario for the past five years.

Clarification as of March 26, 2024:

1)       The requester is willing to limit the request to the last two years (calendar or fiscal).

2)       The requester is seeking only Ottawa and Toronto clinics.

Time frame: The last 2 fiscal or calendar years

A comprehensive search was conducted by the Health Programs and Delivery Division and 3 records (285 pages) were located in response to your request. Based on the fact that the records fall under the exclusionary provision, Section 65(13)(a), of the Act, access is denied in full. Angie Wong, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Programs and Delivery Division, is responsible for this decision.

A copy of the section of the Act is attached to this letter and it provides the Health Programs and Delivery Division the right to deny access to records.

You may request a review of this decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner 2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400, Toronto ON  M4W 1A8. Please note that you have 30 days from the date of this letter to request a review.  In the event that you do seek a review, please provide the Commissioner’s Office with:

The request file number:  A-2024-00026 / FT

A copy of this decision letter.

A copy of your original request.

A cheque or money order in the amount of $25.00 payable to the Minister of Finance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Consultant  |  Access, Privacy & Corporate Information / Corporate Services Division

Ministry of Health |  Ontario Public Service

Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Exemptions

Application of Act

Non-application of Act, provision of abortion services

65(13) This Act does not apply to information relating to the provision of abortion services if,

(a) the information identifies an individual or facility, or it is reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that it could be utilized, either alone or with other information, to identify an individual or facility

Information Commissioner orders 287 pages released from FOI on abortion Bubble Zone Law

As I told you back in 2018, I appealed the Attorney General's hiding of their alleged "evidence" for the need of an abortion bubble zone. Because there was nothing in the FOI I received that showed a need for the bubble zone:

"One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone?  When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:

"with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports."

So the abortion bubble zone was enacted purely on the basis of Joyce Arthur's say so, and not on any actual concrete police reports. Political? You bethca. Of course I had already learned that there were no police reports for Ottawa, through an FOI of the Ottawa Police. So not only were there no police reports for Ottawa, but now I learn that there were no police reports for the entire province of Ontario."

Recently I heard back from the Information Commissioner. They agreed with me that a large part of the information that was withheld from me, should not have been withheld:

"The adjudicator also upholds the ministry’s decision to withhold some information under the personal privacy exemption at section 21, but finds that portions of the withheld information are not “personal information” once identifiers are removed, and orders disclosure of that information."

Here are the 287 pages that the Attorney General wouldn't let me see because they said I might be able to figure out who wrote the emails. (The bolded statement above is exactly what I argued and the Information Commissioner agreed with me.)

What these 287 pages actually reveal, is that there were three times as much support against the bubble zone, as there was support for the bubble zone. (55 letters for, vs 154 against).

You can view those letters yourself.

Some interesting comments from these letters:

"If such a law is passed, then pro-abortions should not be able to organize rallies either."

"Our Charter protects our right to show the truth. Freedom of expression is fundamental to democracy. I hope you will publish my point of view as you have published that of the pro-aborts."

"We just keep getting more and more restrictions on the freedom to have a different point of view in our nation."

"Just because you don't have the same views doesn't give you the right to take away someone else's right to express their opinion in a peaceful way."

"Please rethink your opinion regarding above. Unborn cannot protest but are still human."

"I am not associated with either pro-life or pro-choice advocates...I urge you not to pass laws prohibiting abortion protests. Laws exist to deal with criminal forms of harassment, and these should be applied as warranted. The singular fact that a protest offends some people is completely unacceptable as a justification for banning the proponent's freedom of speech. We do not need liberties diminished issue by issue and one by one until we find ourselves unable to protest, express an opinion or offend someone."

Conclusion? We still have no evidence that the abortion bubble zone was needed. 

A small sample of the letters that I was refused access to on my original FOI.

Fr. Tony Van Hee's court dates

Fr. Tony Van Hee's case has been split into two parts and will be heard separately.

1) The civil challenge to the law, on the constitutionality of the abortion bubble zone law, will be heard in Superior Court. Date unknown at this point.

2) The criminal case will be heard July 6-7, 2020 in the Ontario Court of Justice.

Prayers would be good for Fr. Tony and his case. In fact the Rosary would be an especially good prayer to say.

If you want to hear some amazing stories on the power of the Rosary as a weapon against evil listen to Dr. Taylor Marshall and Fr. Donald Calloway. And you don't have to be a Catholic to say the Rosary either. Don't know it? No problem, just read here.

More on Fr. Tony's bubble zone constitutional challenge

From DEBORAH GYAPONG, CANADIAN CATHOLIC NEWS

"The case has been adjourned to Jan. 24 and “transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice so it can be heard before a judge,” said constitutional lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos, who is representing the 83-year-old Jesuit priest. 

“This is because we have challenged the constitutionality of the legislation in question and a justice of the peace cannot strike legislation as being unconstitutional,” said the lawyer. 

Polizogopoulos said they will likely set a trial date at the Jan. 24 court appearance."

Update on Fr. Tony's bubble zone constitutional challenge

Fr. Tony's next appearance in court will be Jan 24th. It will be for scheduling his case at most.

Many people have donated to the case, but more money is still needed. Much thanks to everyone who has donated thus far.

You can still donate on line here. If you prefer to send in a cheque for Fr. Tony's case, you can write a cheque and make it out to "Vincent Dagenais Gibson, In trust” and send it to Fr. Tony's lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos.

Just include a cover-letter, or in the re: line of the cheque note that the cheque is for Fr. Tony Van Hee's case.

Send cheque to:

Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP/s.r.l.
260, rue Dalhousie Street, Suite 400
Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7E4

Tel.: (613) 241-2701 Ext: 243
Fax: (613) 241-2599
albertos@vdg.ca

Protesting public policy on public property - prohibited

Fr. Tony's lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos has filed two letters: one to the Attorney General of Ontario, and one to the Crown regarding charges against him. Fr. Tony who was charged under the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act which prohibits freedom of expression rights for pro-life people only.

If a pro-choice person held a sign in the same place, they wouldn't be charged. Therefore this bill not only prohibits free speech, but is also discriminatory against pro-life people. 

Letter to Attorney General

Letter to Crown Prosecutor’s Office

According to the letter:

"The Defendant intends to question the constitutional validity of the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, chapter 19 Schedule 1.

...

The following is the legal basis for the constitutional question:

10. Father Van Hee was protesting a political and public policy issue on public property. The Act has resulted in his freedom of expression pursuant to section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms being violated. The limits cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

11. The Act is arbitrary and overbroad and contrary to the Charter. As such, the Act is null and void. 

12. The limits on Father Van Hee’s freedom of expression do not serve a pressing and substantial objective. The limits cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. 

13. The means chosen to serve the Act’s objective are not rationally connected to the objective, are not minimally impairing and are not proportionate. 

14. The limits on Father Van Hee’s freedom of expression cannot be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."

It's pretty pathetic how pro-life people are continually having to defend our right to freedom of expression by going to court. It's supposedly a right but it sure isn't free when you have to go to court and pay for it. Over and over again.

Priest challenges Safe Access to Abortion Services Act

Fr. Tony Van Hee has retained constitutional lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos to represent him against a ticket he received last Wednesday at the Ottawa Morgentaler abortion site.

Fr. Van Hee received the ticket last week for his silent witness in front of the abortion facility in Ottawa under the "Safe Access to Abortion Services Act Section 3(1)(e)(iii)". You know the one. Where Jim Watson got an Ontario law enacted by Kathleen Wynne's Liberals to prevent people from using their constitutional right to free speech? Yes, that one.

According to the ticket, Fr. Van Hee committed the offense to "intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person".

It's kind of hard to intimidate someone when you are across the street, looking away from the abortion site, holding signs that say absolutely nothing about abortion:

"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse"

They really do want to shut us up don't they?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Polizogopoulos won my own freedom of expression case against those same Wynne Liberals, and more recently a court challenge for the Christian Heritage Party.

Fr. Van Hee will have to appear in court on Nov 16, 2018.

I know who I'm rooting for. And it isn't Jim Watson.

The Mad Hatter has nothing on Ontario's bubble zone law

Okay class, let's review.

This abortion bubble zone law has got to be one of the most moronic laws that the former Liberal government in Ontario--together with Ottawa mayor Jim Watson--ever dreamed up.

Of course, we know it was done for purely political reasons. In fact we have proof of that. But first let's recap this down the rabbit hole lunacy, and then update it with the latest.

It all begins with Joyce Arthur's writing to Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson. Arthur sends a submission to Jim Watson about a make believe need for an abortion bubble zone. Jim Watson parrots Arthur's submission to the Attorney General's office. He literally cuts and pastes Arthur's blah blah blah and sends that to the Attorney General.

Jim Watson falls for Arthur's nonsense and includes her make believe non-reasons for a bubble zone:

• Protecting the safety and privacy of providers, staff, and patients
• Protecting the right to access healthcare services
• Protecting women’s health by reducing the risk of complications
• Protecting the clinic and property from destruction and vandalism
• Fostering community peace by reducing neighbourhood nuisance and noise
• Reducing traffic problems, hazards, and accident risk
• Potentially reducing anti-choice violence and harassment
• Potentially lowering the levels and impact of anti-choice activism in general

His letter to the Attorney General concludes with this gem:

"Legal services has included the recommendations made by the Study's authors in its analysis of the available options."

I am not kidding.

The Attorney General buys this mythological need for a bubble zone and implements the new law.

I learned of all this through a freedom of information request on the bubble zone.

I am now appealing to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario because of all the information that I didn't receive.

In fact, what I did receive was pretty sloppy stuff. No index was included in my package. When an index finally arrived (after I told the information commissioner I hadn't received it when she asked), it referenced document numbers, but my information only had page numbers and no document numbers. So clearly it was impossible to match the index with the stack of papers I received.

One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone?  When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:

"with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports."

So the abortion bubble zone was enacted purely on the basis of Joyce Arthur's say so, and not on any actual concrete police reports. Political? You bethca. Of course I had already learned that there were no police reports for Ottawa, through an FOI of the Ottawa Police. So not only were there no police reports for Ottawa, but now I learn that there were no police reports for the entire province of Ontario.

Even a pro-abortion's own research corroborates the extremely low incidence of any harassment or violence at abortion clinics in Canada. This information was also not included in Jim Watson's so-called "rationale" for an abortion bubble zone.

"Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail."

And now we have an elderly priest being charged with breaking this stupid law. Fr. Tony Van Hee's ticket tells us the reason he was charged:

"Intimidation or intent to intimidate a person."

A sign about free speech is intimidating? To whom? Jim Watson?

"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse"

Fr. Tony was also facing away from the abortion facility when he held that "intimidating" sign. So he wasn't contravening this nonsensical clause in the law by:

"continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility," 

Yes. This law is political. Pure and simple.

Freedom of expression hero

"The primacy of free speech - cornerstone of western civilization - without free speech the state is a corpse" Fr. Tony Van Hee.

Fr. Tony is my hero.

When a Charter right isn't a Charter right

There are currently four Charter challenges being brought against the federal government regarding the Summer Jobs Program's unconstitutional attestation clause. Most likely there will be more coming.

This is all really good news for the people of Canada, and especially for those of us (all of us?) who value our Charter rights.

The media, even those from the left, see the massive problem with the Trudeau attestation. In fact the only people in Canada who think the attestation is fair--are Justin Trudeau and maybe some of his MPs, but most likely not all of them.

All this because our feminist prime minister decided to invent a new Charter right: "reproductive rights". Also known as the Right to Abortion. Justin Trudeau also likes to use the new buzz words "Charter values". Another meaningless notion.

Except instead of doing anything constitutional to create this new "right", he simply dreamed it into existence.

And now companies who have been denied funds under the SJP have to defend their actual Charter rights--all in the name of a non-existing Charter right.

In other words, under a Justin Trudeau government, actual Charter rights can only become actual Charter rights once you go to court, spend a whole lot of money, and spend a whole lot of time to put forward your case. A case that any grade school child could easily comprehend if you put it to them like this:

"I have a right to my religious beliefs. I have a right to not agree with abortion because I think it's morally wrong. I have a right to listen to my conscience. So why do I need to go to court to ask a judge to grant me these rights? I thought they were already mine? The Charter says I have them, so why can't I have them without going to court? 

Is a Prime Minister really allowed to create a new right, just because he wants to? I don't understand this."

And there is another important fact about all this.

Can you imagine the millions of dollars the tax payer will have to fork out so that Justin Trudeau can defend his make believe Right to Abortion? After all, these are his "charter values" not ours. So why will we have to pay for Justin Trudeau to defend himself?

Po-choice people can express freedom of expression rights but pro-life people cannot

Today was the first day of the new bubble zone legislation. Pro-life people are now banned from exercising their freedom of expression rights to protest abortion within 50 metres of any abortion facility in Ontario.

We already know that there is no need for a bubble zone. My FOI on police reports at 65 Bank Street revealed no assaults where a charge was laid.

Here is the line we cannot cross.

Here's the sign that delimits the area. Do not protest on the wrong side of this sign unless you want a fine and or go to jail.

About 17 metres away at the corner of Sparks St. and Bank were the "pro-choice" protesters.

So here's the thing. Pro-life people are banned from exercising their freedom of expression rights and must do so outside the bubble zone. But "pro-choice" people can exercise their freedom of expression rights (they're actually protesting us) inside the bubble zone.

I think this is called a double standard.

This double standard is because in the Ontario government's paternalistic approach to pro-lifers. They must ensure that at all times our Charter rights are denied at every possible moment, and at any possible place they deem appropriate.

Paul Lauzon got some great pictures and footage of this continued campaign of discrimination against pro-life people.

Here is Maureen Ward's playlist of four short videos. Included in this list is a short video of the "pro-choice" people exercising their freedom of expression rights, the same rights we are not allowed to express.

The freedom to hear what people have to say

Excellent article by Andrew Potter on free speech that tells us that the real importance of free speech is not so much the freedom to speak (though that is important), but the freedom to hear what others say:

"...We got here because the problem is with the way we framed the question, as a debate over the benefits of free speech and the consequences we are willing to tolerate. Instead, what we should be focused on is the right of people to hear what others have to say, and how this fits into a broader account of individual freedom.

What’s the difference? If you turn the free speech debate on its head and treat it as a right to hear what someone has to say, the constitutional rationale for it becomes a lot clearer: The right to hear or read something and judge its worth or merit for yourself is the basis for being treated as an equal, rational and autonomous agent. We shield things from children precisely because we don’t think their rational faculties are sufficiently well developed. They don’t know how to evaluate something by their own lights. That’s why a big part of parenting is bringing kids along the path to autonomy, teaching them to judge and think for themselves.

Hearing what people have to say and judging its merits for yourself is the mark of being an adult. And part of being an adult is having the right to make mistakes, to make bad judgments or decisions, and take responsibility for what follows. 

It just so happens that a society made up of autonomous individuals making independent rational judgments about what others have to say is the basic condition for the possibility of a liberal democracy. The fact that so many people, on the right and the left, are willing to have their right to hear limited by governments, universities or even social media mobs, is a further sign of the relentless infantilization of our culture — and goes a long way toward explaining the current crisis of liberalism."

This was the core issue with our charter challenge. Our pro-abortion government under Kathleen Wynne, didn't want pro-life people like myself to discuss anything related to abortion in Ontario. Like numbers of abortions, policies about abortion, etc.

They wanted to shut us down and changing the law seemed like a genius and simple way to do it. Their logic--though they would never admit to this--was that if we don't have the information then we can't talk about it. So they made up specious reasons about safety which were ultimately shot down by the facts and actual logic.

In the end their tactics were neither genius nor simple.

Ontario government will not appeal our FOI case

This is great news. For us. For Ontario citizens. For people who love democracy. For people who love freedom of expression rights. For people who love justice.

Ottawa Citizen - Freedom of expression wins

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/judge-strikes-down-law-that-blocks-access-to-information-about-abortion-in-ontario

Judge strikes down law that blocks access to information about abortion in Ontario

 Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen

Published on: June 12, 2017 | Last Updated: June 12, 2017 7:05 PM EDT

An Ontario judge has thrown out a law that prevents the public from knowing how many abortions are being performed in the province, saying it impedes meaningful discussion and criticism about abortion services “which is a matter of public interest.”

The Association for Reformed Political Action, which challenged the law, called the ruling by Justice Marc Labrosse of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice a “huge victory” for freedom of expression.

“This decision strengthens democracy,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

In his ruling, Labrosse said the law, which excludes information about abortion services from Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy, is too broad and was passed with virtually no debate. He ruled that the section in question is unconstitutional.

The province has 12 months to put remedial legislation in place before the current law becomes invalid.

Labrosse said Ontario relied on concerns of the Ontario Hospital Association that disclosing information about abortions could put the safety and security of patients, hospitals and staff at risk. But the law also excludes general statistical information on abortion, which was once available.

“The evidence in these proceedings leads me to conclude that in order to have a meaningful public debate, the available information to allow for a meaningful public debate certainly needs to go beyond some of the basic statistical information offered by Ontario … the information provided to date is clearly insufficient.”

Schutten said the motivation of his organization — which opposes abortion — was to “make sure we can comment and lobby with accurate numbers. We have never been interested in patient or doctor identifiers or individual names. All we are looking for is statistical general information.”
The ruling could have implications beyond abortion.

Ontario passed similar, although less broad, legislation preventing information from being made public about which health institutions are providing medically assisted death.

Dying with Dignity says such information is crucial to an informed public debate about access to and availability of medically assisted death.

Dying With Dignity Canada CEO Shanaaz Gokool said she sees similarities between the ruling on abortion statistics and her organization’s objection to restrictions on access to information about medical assistance in death.

Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner Brian Beamish argued that banning access to information about where assisted death was being performed “hinders transparency, accountability and meaningful public debate,” and is not based on any evidence of public harm.
Beamish also intervened in the court ruling about records related to abortion services.

Gokool said her organization has asked the ministry whether the ruling on access to abortion information changes anything when it comes to limits on access to information about assisted death.
“The decision seems to say that withholding information from Ontarians about health care services limits the ability to have full public and social policy discussions.

“The province has to take another look at what they have passed. To do otherwise would be problematic.”

ARPA, which opposes assisted death, is also interested in information about the provision of services in the province, said Schutten.

“This is the interesting thing. Our organization has grave concerns about vulnerable people. But in this case we would agree with Dying With Dignity. We want to be able to know how many people are being killed and by what means.

“We can handle the information … and a good, robust debate.”
epayne@postmedia.com

Charter challenge - we won - you can't hide abortion information

The Judge ruled in our favour. See judgement here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6ODBUTGM3d1liNG8/view?usp=sharing

We were successful and the portion of the law excluding abortion-related information was struck down.

Pro-lifers have freedom of expression and assembly rights

Christie Blatchford in the National Post: Abortion clinics no longer need such sweeping protection

My letter in response in the National Post: Opponents of abortion have the right to protest

Michael Coren earns his liberal creds

By Patricia Maloney

Brian Lilley interviews the new Conservative leader Andrew Scheer. Scheer isn't scary. Really.

Unlike Justin Trudeau who bans pro-life people from his party, Andrew Scheer, and in fact all Conservatives, don't ban any group from their party. Social conservatives are welcome. Fiscal conservatives are welcome. Even Libertarian Maxime Bernier is welcome. Heck Bernier almost won. A real big tent party. Not the Liberals. They pretend they are inclusive when they're exclusive. The Liberals are inclusive only as long as you are not pro-life.

Of course I also expected our Liberal media to be all over Andrew Scheer since he is pro-life. And I wasn't disappointed. The first piece I read by our liberal media was Michael Coren, who has now made his transition complete to being a full fledged member of the liberal media.

You see, a lot more work comes your way when you belong to the pro-choice media.

Coren attempts to analyze Scheer 's becoming leader in light of the fact that he is a social conservative. This  of course gives Coren a nice sounding board to trash social conservatives who he says are neither "sensible" nor "informed". And of course Coren buys into the mandatory fable no good liberal can be without: "woman's right to control her own body". No Michael the unborn child is another person's body though I'm pretty sure you know that.

"Most sensible and informed people in Canada believe in a woman’s right to control her own body and reproduction, and even those who may have some moral reservations about abortion accept the legal and political status quo.

And this:

"In other words, the argument is over."

Another pro-choice fallacy.

And what else are we according to Coren?

Fringe, irrelevant, eccentric, mostly ignored, zealots and hysterical.

He calls us "pro-lifers" in quotes. Is it because Coren thinks he's picking up a soiled piece of trash and has to hold his nose? And for the cherry on top Coren takes a pot shot at Roman Catholics (who he used to be) and Dutch Calvinist Churches.

"Members of this movement are usually Roman Catholic or from one of the various Dutch Calvinist churches; they are generally young, often with a home-schooled or private Christian education background; they are politically right wing on a number of causes; and they have jettisoned the moderation of some of their elders, and also learned lessons from “pro-lifers” south of the border."

Yep. Coren's transition is complete.

The bogus health and safety argument and our Charter right to protest abortion

More on my previous post about what the IPC said about our charter challenge against the Ontario government's decision to exclude abortion information from freedom of information requests when the IPC said this:

"Broad exclusions from the Acts, such as the ones proposed in Bill 84, can prevent the public from accessing information that poses no health or safety risk. For example, in 2012, the Ministry denied a freedom of information request for province-wide statistics on the number of claims and amounts billed for abortion services. It did so on the basis of the abortion records exclusion in section 65(5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act,3 even though disclosure of this information posed no health or safety risk. In fact, the 2 Similar provisions exist in the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 

3 That decision was upheld by my office in Order PO-3222.
4 Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application. 

Finally, the IPC notes that access to information should not be limited in order to stifle legitimate and peaceful protest. The right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association."

Re: this statement:

"Ministry ultimately disclosed this information outside the scope of the statute after the requester commenced a court application."

So if health and safety was really a concern for the Government regarding my requested abortion information, why would they release the information only after I initiated court proceedings? Clearly they wouldn't have released it if they were truly concerned about the health and safety of...someone...we don't know who because there was no private information requested.

The fact that they did release it proves that there were no health and safety concerns at all, they were just hoping I would go away which I did not.

Re: This statement:

"Finally, the IPC notes that access to information should not be limited in order to stifle legitimate and peaceful protest. The right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association."

This statement was expressed as it pertains to people protesting medical aid in dying (MAID). But it also holds true for abortion as well. In a democracy where people protest abortion (which is paid for out of those pro-lifers taxes), those people also have a 

"right to protest and express criticism of government decisions is an integral component of any democracy and is protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees everyone freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association".

It is truly mind boggling how this Liberal government in Ontario tramples on so many fundamental rights of citizens and makes stuff up to satisfy their own abortion agenda.

Don Martin and Pierre Lemieux - let's talk about abortion

Dear Don Martin,

Thanks for your great interview with Conservative leadership candidate Pierre Lemieux.

Mr. Lemieux speaks for many many social conservatives in this country with his strong stand against abortion (he's not afraid to say he's against abortion) and for free speech rights. I myself am very concerned with both these issues.

Like Mr. Lemieux I am opposed to abortion, and am currently awaiting a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ontario on our Charter Challenge against the Ontario government for hiding abortion information. Our case is based on freedom of speech rights: how can I practice my freedom of expression rights in commenting meaningfully on how many abortions are performed in Ontario, and their cost, when the Ontario government prevents me from seeing that information?

I can't really think of two more important Canadian values, than the right of life for ALL Canadians including the pre-born, and the very old. And Freedom of Speech itself is the cornerstone of Canadian democracy. 

Mr. Lemieux stands for both of these values. I will be voting for him, and I thank him sincerely for his standing for what I believe in.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Government wrong when it says "large body of scholarly works on abortion policy"

Another argument that the government's lawyer, Dan Guttman made as to why I don't need access to abortion statistics through FOI requests, is that there is already data publicly available:

"There is a large body of scholarly works on abortion policy."

He identifies two public documents written by abortion doctor Wendy Norman along with some other doctors. 

Guttman also brings up CIHI as a source of data. We already know that CIHI's data is grossly under reported (not all clinics report and no doctor's offices report abortions at all). Now we learn that the two additional reports by Dr. Wendy Norman (Abortion Health Services in Canada and First-trimester medical abortion practices in Canada) also under report abortion data, one of them actually reports less abortions than CIHI does.

1) Abortion health services in Canada (Objective: To determine the location of Canadian abortion services relative to where reproductive-age women reside and the characteristics of abortion facilities and providers.)

This paper is based on a national survey of abortion providers. It reports that 75,650 abortions were done in 2012. CIHI reported 83,708 abortions in 2012:

"We report the first detailed data on abortion facilities and providers in Canada, including data on facilities providing 90.4% of the total number of Canadian abortions (83,708) reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information for 2012".

The report makes no mention of the fact that the 83,708 CIHI number is also an incorrect under reported number, but the statement leads the reader to believe that CIHI's numbers are accurate when they are not. My calculations based on my 2010 FOI requests show that OHIP numbers were 53.28% higher that CIHI's numbers that year. And since every year since 2010 we have not had accurate data, I've had to estimate the numbers.

And now we know, my 53.28% number is probably even higher based on what we learned from the government during our court appearance.

2) First-trimester medical abortion practices in Canada (Objective: To understand the current availability and practice of first-trimester medical abortion (MA) in Canada):

"A strength of this study was the high response rate, allowing it to capture 90.4% of the terminations reported to CIHI in 2012.1 It also presents the first picture of MA in Canada and can provide a basis for further evaluations. However, we recognize that it might not be completely representative; physicians were recruited from publicly advertised sites providing surgical abortion services, which might have introduced a lower response rate from hospital-based services and from MA providers not associated with an advertised abortion facility. Another potential limitation is the low response rate observed in Ontario (56.3%), a high-population area; thus, the results of this survey might not be generalizable to every province, especially Ontario."

Another problem is that these reports are not published annually. And there is no guarantee that they would be published every year, and most probably won't be. Since these two Wendy Norman reports are for 2012 stats, but were only published in 2016 (four years later), it's pretty certain that these reports are probably a one off. Reports that are published occasionally or only once, are not a good argument for telling someone there is already abortion information out there. And two public one-off reports that are known to under report abortion data, does not qualify as a "large body of scholarly works", wouldn't you say?