Access to information laws protects information seekers

Two weeks ago, in a press conference at Queen’s Park, I announced my Charter challenge against the Ontario government’s amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FIPPA).

Together with my co-applicants, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, we will argue that our Charter right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press, is violated by this Act.

Some information is routinely made public by the government, and some of it is not. In order to protect citizens' rights to see information that isn't publicly available (e.g., communications between government officials on how they came to a decision, or how much they spent on a particular project) we have access to information laws. 

In Ontario, the purpose of this law, (called the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or FIPPA), is twofold. It protects citizens' privacy. It also stipulates under what conditions information must and must not be made available to citizens.

Access to information requests are an extremely important mechanism to hold governments accountable to the electorate. As Pierre Trudeau once said:

"Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government's policy. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy."

The media regularly makes Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to break stories on government spending, decision-making or other action. 

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I also make FOI requests regularly and that I can't do that anymore in Ontario. Because in 2012 the Ontario Government changed FIPPA to exclude one medical service from FOI requests, and one medical service only: abortion services. They added clause 65(5.7) 

"This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

(I only ever ask for aggregate numbers, and never ask for personal information, like doctor's or patent's names.)

So I can't comment anymore on doctor's OHIP billings for abortion services.

I took the government to court, and after two and a half years, they released the two page document I was looking for. So I should be happy right? Wrong. Because they released the document outside the Act, I was not protected by the Act. It also means that although in theory I may still be able to obtain information on abortion, there is no guarantee of my obtaining such information. The government can arbitrarily refuse me.

It is far preferable that information be released through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's because the government must follow its own rules in releasing information. But there are no rules for releasing abortion information outside the Act. And if they refuse to give me the information I am looking for, I have no recourse. 

When information is subject to FIPPA, not only do I have recourse (for instance if I am refused information), but the act also offers guarantees of response rates (like 30 days), etc. And if information is not released within the required 30 days, they must tell me why there is a delay.

So the Act protects my rights. When information is released outside the Act, I am literally at the mercy of the government. They can just say "no", with no explanation, since no reason is required. When information is refused inside the Act, I must be provided with an explanation as to why it was refused. For example, cabinet confidences, or legitimate privacy concerns. 

Releasing information inside the Act, although far from perfect, does ensure a lot more accountability from the government, and more protection for me. 

FIPPA ensures that the government is accountable to all of us, and that includes the media, with the information it holds on our behalf. This clause is a bad law and it must be struck down.

More information:

The ARPA Canada FIPPA challenge - FAQs

Our case

The media - are they anti pro-life or am I imagining things?

The media is all in a flap about Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons receiving the Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals.

Andrea Mrozek gives us an excellent synopsis as to the story behind why pro-life heroes Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner keep going to jail. And it isn't because they are criminals:
In 1994, a “temporary” injunction was set up around some abortion clinics in Ontario at the request of abortion providers, violating freedom of expression and assembly. These protest-free bubble zones, generally with a radius of 60 feet from the actual clinic, included public sidewalk space. Linda Gibbons peacefully and quietly enters those boundaries.

Those asking for the injunctions claimed that abortion protesters were intimidating and harassing clients and staff. They argued women who had already made a decision about abortion needed to be protected from messaging that might offend them.

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, have long argued that women choosing abortions are not getting full information and support.

It is true that the injunctions go back to a time when abortion protest was more heated, in the direct aftermath of the Morgentaler decision of 1988, when Canada’s abortion laws were struck down.

Today, however, there is a much different movement of abortion protesters outside clinics. They hand out literature and in some cases, openly pray. Linda Gibbons, who has spent nine years in jail over the past two decades for refusing to stay outside of the bubble zones, has signs that read: “Why mom? When I have so much love to give.”

In fact, as Ms. Mrozek says:
"Karla Homolka, Canada’s notorious and violent sexual offender, didn’t spend much more time behind bars than Linda Gibbons has."

Maurice Velacott gave us his reasons for the medals:
"Unlike the Justice Minister, Vellacott was unable to award these medals to the victims of crime, because these baby victims are dead, so instead the award to those “heroines of humanity” Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons who are trying to protect defenseless, voiceless human beings in the womb from butchery and death, and trying to let vulnerable women know that there are other options and support and adoption possibilities. It’s what you would expect in a caring compassionate society."

Hard to argue with that logic.

And my own letter today in teh Ottawa Citizen although I couldn't find it on line:
"I was very pleased to hear that Mary Wagner and Linda Gibbons have won Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee medals for the work they do in their advocating for the saving and protection of preborn children. These women, at great risk to themselves, are willing to go to jail for their belief that the killing of the weakest of the weak is wrong.

According to Wikipedia, Dr. Henry Morgentaler, "in spite of the risks to himself—loss of career, prison for years or for life—he decided to perform safe, sterile abortions for women and, at the same time, challenge the law." For Morgentaler's civil disobedience and his belief that abortion should be a "woman's right" at the expense of the unborn child, he won the Order of Canada.

At least Mary Wagner's and Linda Gibbons' civil disobedience is for the purpose of saving lives, not taking lives."

So the summary, of the summary, as to why Linda Gibbons and Mary Wagner deserve these medals:

These women are not criminals; Ms. Gibbons spent not much less time in prison than notorious murderer Karla Homolka; Mr. Vellacott couldn't give the medals to dead babies; unlike Henry Morgentaler, Ms. Gibbons' and Ms. Wagner's goals are to save babies and help their mothers, while Morgentaler kills babies and harms their mothers.

So give it a rest media.

Abortion, the election, and the newspaper editor

“Hey boss, I just received another letter about abortion. Do you want to see it?”

“For heaven’s sakes, do those pro-lifers ever take a break? Do they ever come up for air? No I don’t want to see it.”

“But this one makes a good point. She says that MPs who say all women voters agree with abortion--are wrong. That there are some women out there, who are pro-life and can speak for themselves, thank you very much.”

“Who cares? We know the abortion debate is dead. Why do these religious fanatics insist on talking about abortion all the time?”

“Well, she isn’t saying anything religious. She just doesn’t think people should appoint themselves as spokeswoman for her views. She wants to give her own point of view. And that’s what we are in the business of, discussing all points of view, right?”

“Of course we are, but everybody knows the abortion debate isn’t going anywhere. The feminists won’t give up their abortion rights.”

“But there’s no such thing as abortion rights. That is, no constitutional right to abortion anyway.”

“Whatever. This election is about real issues. The economy, jobs, Quebec. None of the politicians are talking about abortion.”

“Brad Trost did...I don’t know, but people who are against abortion believe that the unborn person is a human being. That it’s not just a bunch of cells. What do you think a fetus is?”

“It doesn’t matter what I think. I need to get a paper out, not debate abortion.”

“But if people can’t debate abortion in the newspapers, where can they debate it? Stephen Harper won’t allow it debated in Parliament. The Universities won’t allow it debated on campus. That pretty much leaves the media. That’s just about the only place left for them to have their say. You know like, in letters to the editor? That’s what we do, isn’t it boss? Discuss and debate all subjects, right? No other subject is off limits in an election. Why is abortion?”

“I don’t have time for this. Delete the darn letter.”