Monday, December 16, 2013
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Ontario's "open and transparent initiative" isn't very open or transparent
I asked the Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne, a question about her open and transparent government initiative on October 21.
I asked her if the initiative would "include the lifting of the secret curtain on abortion services in Ontario?"
I have followed up that letter, with numerous emails and telephone calls, trying to find out exactly when the Premier would be answering my question.
The only person who has ever called me back was someone from the correspondence unit. All she could tell me was that they had received my letter. When I questioned her further, she had no idea as to when I could expect a response.
The premier's automated response says that:
On December 10 when I called again, I was told it could take another four weeks, but the receptionist couldn't tell me more than that.
It's already been almost two months now, that I have been waiting.
I was watching Ms. Wynne's video on youtube this week. It did inspire me I have to say.
It inspired me so much, that I posted my own message for Ms. Wynne.
I asked her if the initiative would "include the lifting of the secret curtain on abortion services in Ontario?"
I have followed up that letter, with numerous emails and telephone calls, trying to find out exactly when the Premier would be answering my question.
The only person who has ever called me back was someone from the correspondence unit. All she could tell me was that they had received my letter. When I questioned her further, she had no idea as to when I could expect a response.
The premier's automated response says that:
"Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and the fact that I may need to share your email with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days."Clearly I've waited longer than "several business days".
On December 10 when I called again, I was told it could take another four weeks, but the receptionist couldn't tell me more than that.
It's already been almost two months now, that I have been waiting.
I was watching Ms. Wynne's video on youtube this week. It did inspire me I have to say.
It inspired me so much, that I posted my own message for Ms. Wynne.
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
CIHI 2012 abortion statistics available March 2014
From CIHI:
"The 2012 abortion statistics will be available by March, and are slated to include clinic and hospital breakdown for Quebec. 2011 clinic and hospital breakdowns for Quebec will be available at the same time."
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
CIDA does IPPF site visits in only two of five countries
It seems DFAIT's (formerly CIDA) due diligence criteria of making field visits to ensure that the $6 million funding to IPPF does not include abortion services, didn't happen in three of the five countries involved.
This latest ATIP request to DFAIT was based on an email I had received previously from a CIDA media person that stated:
"Field visits to projects and regular monitoring by CIDA field representatives also provide key information that permits CIDA to determine and assess whether the implementing organization is performing or delivering services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement."
So I asked for:
"all information regarding these field visits to the five countries benefiting from the $6 million funding to IPPF."
This is what I received.
There were site visits to Bangladesh between February 12, 2012 and Feb 23, 2012.
And this note:
"All partners were very pleased to have a CIDA officer visit. Some have been receiving funding for several years but have never had the opportunity to welcome a CIDA officer."
Sounds like this is the first time CIDA had done any checking as to how our funds are being used in Bangladesh in several years.
We know that FPAB [IPPF's member association in Bangladesh] does menstrual regulation in Bangladesh, but supposedly no Canadian funds are being used for this. But then we read this comment in the report under their "advocacy program":
"...the management team indicated that FPAB does a lot of advocacy work. Advocacy is part of everything they do, either at the policy making level through activities targeting the MoHFW (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) or at the district and grassroots levels, whenever there is an opportunity during formal meetings with local authorities and religious leaders at training sessions etc. They envision this staying the same over the next few years."
Would that mean then, advocacy for menstrual regulation and abortions? One would assume so, since it is a well known fact that IPPF wants to make abortion legal everywhere and never shies away from telling us so.
The "background" portion of the information does make one reference that abortion services will not be funded under the initiative.
Pages 76 and 77 identify a site visit to Tanzania, but it says virtually nothing about how the funds are used here. It does say that:
"IPPFAR [IPPF Africa Regional Office] also mobilizes resources for its MAs ([member Associations], and advocates for sexual and reproductive rights at the county, regional and international level."
There's that "advocacy" word again.
And you may be asking, what about the due diligence that our money is not being used for abortion services is Afghanistan, Mali and the Sudan? Good question. My ATIP revealed this:
"Please note, no records were found for Afghanistan, Mail or Sudan."
Apparently those field visits and regular monitoring to three of the five countries to "determine and assess whether the implementing organization is performing or delivering services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement." never even happened.
(Note: this ATIP was for the first Annual Progress Report for the project: 27 January - 31 March 2012, and for the Mid-year Report: 1 April - 30 September 2012. There will be additional reports for each year of the funding.)
This latest ATIP request to DFAIT was based on an email I had received previously from a CIDA media person that stated:
"Field visits to projects and regular monitoring by CIDA field representatives also provide key information that permits CIDA to determine and assess whether the implementing organization is performing or delivering services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement."
So I asked for:
"all information regarding these field visits to the five countries benefiting from the $6 million funding to IPPF."
This is what I received.
There were site visits to Bangladesh between February 12, 2012 and Feb 23, 2012.
And this note:
"All partners were very pleased to have a CIDA officer visit. Some have been receiving funding for several years but have never had the opportunity to welcome a CIDA officer."
Sounds like this is the first time CIDA had done any checking as to how our funds are being used in Bangladesh in several years.
We know that FPAB [IPPF's member association in Bangladesh] does menstrual regulation in Bangladesh, but supposedly no Canadian funds are being used for this. But then we read this comment in the report under their "advocacy program":
"...the management team indicated that FPAB does a lot of advocacy work. Advocacy is part of everything they do, either at the policy making level through activities targeting the MoHFW (Ministry of Health and Family Welfare) or at the district and grassroots levels, whenever there is an opportunity during formal meetings with local authorities and religious leaders at training sessions etc. They envision this staying the same over the next few years."
Would that mean then, advocacy for menstrual regulation and abortions? One would assume so, since it is a well known fact that IPPF wants to make abortion legal everywhere and never shies away from telling us so.
The "background" portion of the information does make one reference that abortion services will not be funded under the initiative.
Pages 76 and 77 identify a site visit to Tanzania, but it says virtually nothing about how the funds are used here. It does say that:
"IPPFAR [IPPF Africa Regional Office] also mobilizes resources for its MAs ([member Associations], and advocates for sexual and reproductive rights at the county, regional and international level."
There's that "advocacy" word again.
And you may be asking, what about the due diligence that our money is not being used for abortion services is Afghanistan, Mali and the Sudan? Good question. My ATIP revealed this:
"Please note, no records were found for Afghanistan, Mail or Sudan."
Apparently those field visits and regular monitoring to three of the five countries to "determine and assess whether the implementing organization is performing or delivering services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the funding agreement." never even happened.
(Note: this ATIP was for the first Annual Progress Report for the project: 27 January - 31 March 2012, and for the Mid-year Report: 1 April - 30 September 2012. There will be additional reports for each year of the funding.)
Saturday, December 7, 2013
MP Maurice Vellacott puts two motions on the Notice Paper
As Mike Schouten, director of WeNeedaLAW.ca points out, Mr. Vellacott has given Canadians two early Christmas presents.
See here for Mr. Velacott's Private Members' Notices of Motions.
M-482 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to: (a) study the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1988 related to children before birth in order to understand what the Supreme Court has said about Parliament’s responsibility with respect to resolving public policy questions in this area; (b) propose options that the House and/or the government could take to address any negative impact these decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada may have had, directly or indirectly, on women, men, children and Canadian society; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee report its recommendations to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.
M-483 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to determine what legal protections Canada ought to provide to children before birth, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991, which states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth“; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee present its final report to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.
See here for Mr. Velacott's Private Members' Notices of Motions.
M-482 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to: (a) study the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada since 1988 related to children before birth in order to understand what the Supreme Court has said about Parliament’s responsibility with respect to resolving public policy questions in this area; (b) propose options that the House and/or the government could take to address any negative impact these decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada may have had, directly or indirectly, on women, men, children and Canadian society; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee report its recommendations to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.
M-483 — December 6, 2013 — Mr. Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin) — That a special committee of the House be appointed to determine what legal protections Canada ought to provide to children before birth, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Canada ratified in 1991, which states that “the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth“; and that the committee consist of twelve members which shall include seven members from the government party, four members from the Official Opposition and one member from the Liberal Party, provided that the Chair be from the government party; that in addition to the Chair, there be one Vice-Chair from each of the opposition parties; that the committee have all of the powers of a Standing Committee as provided in the Standing Orders; that the members to serve on the said committee be appointed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the membership report of the special committee be presented to the House no later than 20 sitting days after the adoption of this motion; that membership substitutions be permitted to be made from time to time, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); and that the Committee present its final report to the House no later than 6 months after the adoption of this order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)