Can we give CPCs $661,779,000, like we do for abortion?

According to Joyce Arthur, crisis pregnancy centres received 3.5 million in taxes from governments in the past five years (2011-2015)

Wow, what a pitifully small amount that government gives to crisis pregnancy centres. Surely we can do better than that? Surely we can find an ounce of compassion in our hardened hearts to give more money to crisis pregnancy centres in Canada?

These centres do amazing work in helping women with unplanned pregnancies like CAPSS does.

An interesting comparison would be to compare the dollars spent by government on abortion in Canada, to the dollars spent by government on crisis pregnancy centres.

So below I calculate an estimate of what taxpayers spent in the last five years on abortions. The numbers below are the total numbers of abortion performed in Canada from 2010-2014, based on CIHIs numbers. I then corrected the totals to account for un-reported abortions. (I used these years since CIHI hasn't published 2015 statistics yet, whereas Arthur used 2011-2015 in her calculations.)

In 2010 I learned that CIHI's Ontario abortion statistics were under-reported by 53.28%. (I originally estimated this to be 45.4% but that was based on CIHI's 2009 stats, since I didn't have the 2010 stats at the time.)

This huge discrepancy (431,745 vs 661,779) seems to be mostly from the abortions done in doctor's offices. Since these abortions are NOT captured by CIHI, we can safely assume that there are similar percentages of doctor offices abortions all across the country.

So I then applied this same percentage to all of Canada's abortions estimating a total of 661,779 abortions performed in Canada for five years. Using $1,000 cost per abortion, that's at least $661,779,000, that taxpayers have spent on abortion in Canada in the past five years.

(I have found costs estimated as high as $1,600/abortion so $1000 is underestimating the cost. Of course, if the Ontario government didn't hide abortion information from citizens we might get a better picture of the actual cost of abortion. Without those numbers we have to guess, imagine, estimate, or blue sky the numbers).

So our governments spent at least $661,779,000 on abortions for a five year period, compared to $3.5 million for CPCs.

This means the government (via the Canadian taxpayer) has paid a only tiny tiny fraction to help fund crisis pregnancy centres, as compared to what they spent on abortions. That's a lot of money going to kill unborn babies and almost nothing to support CPCs.

This makes it really clear to me that as a country we have been terribly remiss in not calling on our politicians to provide a lot more funding to CPCs. I suggest we should all email and write letters to our MPs and MPPs and ask them to increase that pitiful amount to something a lot more. In fact we should call on our governments to fund an equal amount to CPCs, as they do to fund abortions. It's our money after all. Shouldn't we have a say in where it goes?

Come to think of it, I'd like to see my tax dollars going only to CPCs and not to abortion at all.

I will be emailing my MP, MPP, the Prime Minister (justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca) and the Minister of Health (Jane Philpott, Jane.Philpott@parl.gc.ca) and ask them to provide more funding to CPCs. I hope you do as well.

FOI Charter Challenge helps pro-abortions too

I can't write about abortion statistics. Neither can NDP MP Kennedy Stewart:

“That’s [Therapeutic Abortion Survey] been collected since 1970. And then they cancel it. They cancelled the publication, the tables, and the survey,” he said. “We should look into it more. Again, we’ve had a lot of news reports about how abortions are hard to obtain in different provinces. Once you get rid of this tracking, it makes it very, very difficult to do things like enforce the Canada Health Act.

Nobody else in this country can write or comment about abortion statistics either, because you can't write or comment on something (especially on something as political as abortion) if you don't have the facts to back you up.

The abortion statistics we do have from CIHI, are woefully inaccurate. And we know too well that Ontario has chosen to exclude and hide all Ontario abortion statistics from any and all Freedom of Information requests. BC isn't doing any better.

So our Charter Challenge will benefit even the NDP. You're welcome Kennedy Stewart.

Charter challenge for hiding abortion information

We (ARPA and myself) have now served our application record to the Attorney General of Ontario for our Charter Challenge. Hiding information from taxpayers isn't transparent, open and accountable.

Our application records:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6bnY3Y2pqd21EYlk/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6WnBKcEJ1QThTeFU/view?usp=sharing

In fact, the Ontario Government's decision to exclude abortion information from the public directly contravenes their own "Open Data Directive".

"Ontario’s Open Data Directive maximizes access to government data by requiring all data to be made public, unless it is exempt for legal, privacy, security, confidentiality or commercially-sensitive reasons. It sets out key principles and requirements for publishing open data, and applies to data created and managed by Ontario ministries and provincial agencies."

None of these exemptions apply to the abortion information I was trying to get. So why are they hiding it? Good question.

Charter Challenge interview on Lighthouse News

Al Sebring from Lighthouse news interviews me and André Schutten on our charter challenge to the Ontario Government.

Why a Charter challenge for hiding abortion statistics?

More on our Court Challenge against the Ontario Government for hiding abortion information.

UPDATE: Here is our factum.

This was taken yesterday at Queen's Park at the Ontario Legislature.

Press conference on FOI constitutional challenge in Toronto

Here are my remarks at the Ontario Legislature today.

Everyone agrees that transparency and accountability are required from government.

Politicians accept this. The public demands it.

But we have a government right here in Ontario, that has acted to hide information, while saying the opposite.

And they did this in a bill, whose title ironically, was about this very topic: accountability.

The bill was called the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. It changed the rules by excluding all information regarding one particular, controversial, tax-payer funded medical procedure from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or FIPPA.

You see, I am a pro-life blogger. My blog is called Run with Life. One of the things I do is comment on the abortion situation in Ontario. In order to do that effectively, I need access to accurate information regarding abortions that are performed in Ontario. In the past I have been able to get this information by submitting freedom of information requests to the Ontario Ministry of Health.

I then write about what I receive. And I comment on it.

For example, I found out through these requests of OHIP billing records, that there were over 44,000 abortions performed in Ontario in 2010. That's about 45% more than reported by the Canadian Institute of Health information. Now that this law is in place, I can no longer obtain these numbers for Ontario.

That's because all abortion information is now excluded from FIPPA: Abortion numbers. Abortion complications. Abortion costs to the taxpayer. The demographic statistics of women who have abortions: their age, how many abortions they have, and the gestational age of the fetus at termination. Anything and everything about abortion is now being hidden by the Ontario government.

I learned this when a freedom of information request I made was denied in 2012.
I had requested a chart which set out the number of abortions performed in Ontario during a specific trimester and during a specific time. My request was denied because of the changes to FIPPA.

I challenged that decision before the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who rejected my appeal. I then asked the Commissioner to review that decision, arguing that it was unconstitutional. The Commissioner refused to review its decision. So I took the matter to court and asked them to review the Commissioner’s decision, because I believed it was unconstitutional.

Throughout the entire process, the government of Ontario opposed me and opposed my challenge. One month before our day in court, and after my lawyer had filed all of our written legal documents, the government gave me the chart I requested--outside of FIPPA--and then took the position that my case was moot and should not be heard. They did this after I incurred $30,000 in legal fees and after opposing me for 2 and a half years.

If the government can do this with abortion information, the government can do it with anything.

We can't let the government of Ontario continue to hide information that Ontarians and all Canadians have a right to access...

It's anti-democratic. It's unethical. And it's just plain wrong.

What this also means is that not only the public, but the media as well, can't get abortion information through access requests. Freedom of the press is severely curtailed.

And these changes happened in secret. There is no recorded debate in Hansard of the change to FIPPA. No debate in the Ontario legislature; no discussion in committee hearings. It was snuck into law, with no explanation.

In fact, after I discovered the change, I tried repeatedly to get Kathleen Wynne or her Health Minister, or my local MPP to tell me why they did this. They were unable, or unwilling, to give me a reason.

I think we can all agree, that regardless of our own views on this very controversial topic, hiding any and all information, about a publicly funded medical procedure hinders the public’s ability to hold the government to account and sets a dangerous precedent.

This is why, together with ARPA Canada, we have launched this legal challenge. We argue that the government’s decision to exclude generic abortion information from FIPPA is unconstitutional.

I'm with Monte

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne gives herself entirely too much credit.

Regarding Ontario's new sex-ed program, Conservative Monte McNaughton said:

“it’s not the Premier of Ontario’s job, especially Kathleen Wynne, to tell parents what’s age-appropriate for their children.”

Kathleen replied:

“What is it that especially disqualifies me for the job that I’m doing? Is it that I’m a woman? Is it that I’m a mother? Is it that I have a master’s of education? Is it that I was a school council chair? Is it that I was the minister of education? What is it exactly that the member opposite thinks disqualifies me from doing the job that I’m doing? What is that?”

Who cares about all that Kathleen? I don't, and I don't think anyone else in the province does either.

And Kathleen while we're at it, I don't trust you with running anything in this province. Why would I trust you with sex education? Remember those hard drives being wiped clean Kathleen? And what about those skyrocketing hydro rates? Or what about paying down Ontario's monstrous debt of $278,510,000,000 instead of increasing the debt like you're doing now?

And what about hiding abortion statistics Kathleen? Do you think that's part of your job too?

Monte, I couldn't agree with you more: It's not the Premier of Ontario's job, especially Kathleen Wynne, to tell parents what's age-appropriate for their children.

What is Kathleen Wynne's hidden agenda?

We actually have a Canadian politician speaking out against the Kathleen Wynne's Liberals decision to hide all abortion statistics. Rod Taylor from the Christian Heritage Party:

"When governments try to cover up facts and statistics, it usually sends a signal that they are hiding something they are ashamed of, something that would prove embarrassing or hard to explain to voters and taxpayers. When they cover up the cover-up, that signal gets even louder."

Seems about right.

So exactly what is Kathleen Wynne trying to hide from Ontarians? Are abortion rates doubling? Are they tripling? If she had nothing to hide there would be no need to do this. What is she covering up from us?

Must be pretty awful or she wouldn't have to hide it.

Christine Elliott - does she care about open and transparent government?

Dear Christine,

I might be interested in your op-ed if I thought you really cared about holding Kathleen Wynne responsible for the Liberals attack on Freedom of Information in Ontario.

I've repeatedly asked you what you think about what Kathleen Wynne's government did with open and transparent access to government information.

I've also asked you if you became premier, would you repeal this harmful law that hides all abortion information, and its full frontal attack on democracy.

But all I get from you is--silence.

So no Christine, I didn't read your op-ed.

Thank you.

Patricia Maloney

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat --

I thought you might be interested in my OpEd running in today’s National Post entitled “Kathleen’s war on jobs.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/10/christine-elliott-kathleen-wynnes-war-on-jobs

I am holding this Wynne government to account and standing-up against her job killing pension plan.

Sincerely,

Christine Elliott 

Ontario: 18,330 abortions done in doctors offices in 2010

Wendy Norman grossly underestimates the number of abortions done in Ontario each year. She says it's about 6,000. In 2010 there were actually over three times that many abortions done in Ontario in physician's offices.

That's a whopping 18,330 abortions performed in doctor's offices in that one year alone.

But don't expect to find out how many abortions are being done in doctor's offices in Ontario this year. Because you won't. Not since the Ontario government, under Kathleen Wynne's pro-abortion agenda, continues to make sure that all abortions performed in Ontario are of the top secret variety.

Below see my chart that I published in 2011. These numbers are based on doctor's OHIP billings. In fact, of all those abortions done in doctor's offices, not one of them was reported by CIHI (CIHI doesn't report on abortions done in private physician's offices).

2010 is the only year we will ever see those numbers.

We shouldn't have to pay for what is hidden

From today's National Post

"That damage [that the Liberal government is in no particular hurry to fix the fiscal mess in Ontario]— which will total almost $300-billion in accumulated provincial debt by the time the books are projected to be balanced — is substantial. Even if there are only smooth economic waters ahead for years to come, Ontario will struggle to compete while weighed down by that millstone. We hope that the province will one day have a government that realizes the enormity of this problem. We suspect it will have to wait at least four more years to get it."

For starters, why don't the Liberals defund abortion? How much money do we spend on abortion in Ontario you ask? Well we still don't know of course.

We do know that the Liberals could have spent as much at $70 million in 2010 on abortion, the last year that we have fairly decent statistics for.

After 2011, it's anyone's guess as to what we spend. Probably a lot more.

As long as the Ontario Liberals continue to hide all abortion related information, we won't know what we're spending.

If the Liberals want to hide that information then we shouldn't have to pay for it.

Freedom of information case

These two articles on my Ontario Freedom of Information case disappeared from the Ottawa Citizen's website. I had hard copies so I scanned them and posted them. They are from 2013.

Freedom of Information case - on Lighthouse news

ARPA's Al Siebring, interviewed me Friday for their Lighthouse news program, on my case against the Ontario Government. My interview starts just before the half way point.

Our case (in case you've forgotten):

It's that the government, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), have misinterpreted FIPPA.

Our position is that section 65(5.7) of FIPPA cannot mean a ban on all materials related to the provision of abortion services, but must mean a ban on materials related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information.

Remember that FIPPA has two goals: to make government documents public, and to protect personal privacy.

The amount of abortions and the cost of those abortions, is not personal information, and so keeping those private, do not match up with the goals of FIPPA.

Section 65(5.7) must then mean, and must have been intended, to cover only materials related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information. This position supports a constitutional interpretation of FIPPA. Section 2(b) of the Charter protects my right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

As a blogger, I benefit from freedom of the press.

In order for me to use my freedom of expression, and comment on issues of public importance, such as abortion and the use of taxpayer dollars, I need access to these documents.

The government and the IPC’s interpretation of section 65(5.7) results in a violation of my freedom of expression. It cannot therefore be a proper interpretation.

Violation of freedom of expression rights

Our case in a nutshell

It's that the government, and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (IPC), have misinterpreted FIPPA.

Our position is that section 65(5.7) of FIPPA cannot mean a ban on all materials related to the provision of abortion services, but must mean a ban on materials related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information.

Remember that FIPPA has two goals: to make government documents public, and to protect personal privacy.

The amount of abortions and the cost of those abortions, is not personal information, and so keeping those private, do not match up with the goals of FIPPA.

Section 65(5.7) must then mean, and must have been intended, to cover only materials related to the provision of abortion services which contain personal information. This position supports a constitutional interpretation of FIPPA. Section 2(b) of the Charter protects your right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

As a blogger, I benefit from freedom of the press.

In order for me to use my freedom of expression, and comment on issues of public importance, such as abortion and the use of taxpayer dollars, I need access to these documents.

The government and the IPC’s interpretation of section 65(5.7) results in a violation of my freedom of expression. It cannot therefore be a proper interpretation.

Freedom of Information case moves forward

Today we issued our Factum and Book of Authorities with the ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT.

This is for my Judicial Review of the Ontario government's decision to exclude all abortion services from access requests made under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act.

More information here.

Contact information here.

The Ontario Liberals and Conservatives hidden agenda

I'm pretty sure there is a hidden agenda in the Ontario provincial election. And it is shared by leaders Kathleen Wynne and Tim Hudak.

This is what it says:

"Whatever happens, do not talk about the hiding of abortion statistics done by the Liberal government. No matter how much people pester you, under no circumstances should you answer the question. Got that? If you do talk about it, it I'll be forced to issue a Justin Trudeau manifesto that henceforth all candidates must be pro-choice. Okay? Do you understand?"

My riding in Ottawa Vanier is held by Liberal Madeleine Meilleur. Who I met with and asked why her government decided to do this. Of course she pretty much had no idea, and acted like a deer in the head lights when I brought it up. She solved the problem of not having a clue what I was talking about, by passing the buck to Deb-has-all-the answers-Matthews. Who funnily enough couldn't give me any answers. At least not that she'd share with me.

So I recently sent Ms. Meilleur another email, which of course she hasn't answered. Here is part of that email.

Hello Madeleine, 

"...can you please tell me what you will do if re-elected, about this decision to exclude abortion statistics from access to information requests? Will you actively work to restore our access to information rights in Ontario? Will you ensure that all medical services including abortion, will be open to public scrutiny? Will you work to drop this clause from FIPPA?"

I should have signed it, "the broken record".

Next I sent and email to the Conservative candidate Martin Forget, which said in part:

Hello Martin,

"...can you please tell me what you will do about this Liberal decision to exclude abortion statistics from access to information requests? Will you actively work to restore our access to information rights in Ontario? Will you ensure that all medical services including abortion, will be open to public scrutiny? Will you work to drop this clause from FIPPA?"

Of course, just because candidates won't answer these questions, doesn't mean we should stop asking them.

Treating Ontario voters like idiots

The Ontario election is drawing closer. There's been no discussion from any of the candidates regarding the Liberal's decision to hide abortion information.

Here is one person's letter to the Ontario MPP candidates regarding this:

"I would like to know what you will do, if re-elected, to restore access to information rights in Ontario. In what way will you work to return the ability of the ordinary taxpayer to have full access to all data concerning all medical services paid for by the taxpayer? This was recently stripped from us in a covert and undemocratic manner by the current Liberal government, all the while saying the right words about an "open & transparent government". 

I am now aware that the Ontario taxpayer, including myself, can not access information on selected medical procedures chosen by some. I as a taxpayer believe that I should be able to be informed of what my taxes pay for in ALL regards. To be clear, I am not interested in names or other personal details; that would be ridiculous in every way to suggest. Everyone is entitled to privacy. However, the statistics are another issue and do not violate anyone's privacy. 

Of course, I am referring to the number of abortions performed in this province on a yearly basis. Due to a personal preference of Deb Matthews and NOT at the request of the medical profession and NOT at the request of the facilities of medical facilities providing the services and NOT even at the specific request of a lobby group, the ability of the taxpayer to access statistics concerning abortion ended with the passage of the latest Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Section 65.(5.7). 

I am truly and utterly disgusted by this. If access can be denied on one thing, how long before the Liberals, in pursuit of further "openness & transparency" will exempt other issues from Freedom of Information requests? The answer to that, obviously, is "whenever it suits them". You know, as a taxpayer, I hate being treated like an idiot. 

If elected, what actions will you take to correct this un-democratic action? What actions will you take to ensure that another ON Minister doesn't decide, on personal preference, to exclude a topic under his/her Ministry from Freedom of Information requests? It causes me great concern about this thing we call democracy when people like Deb Matthews abuse her power so blatantly. 

I request a written response to this correspondence. Please tell me how someone/anyone was being harmed by the release of the statistics concerning the number of abortions performed in Ontario yearly? This is a great cause for concern among the public of Ontario."

CIHI publishes 2012 abortion stats and Quebec abortion stats for 2011

CIHI has published 2012 abortion statistics for 2012. As usual the data is incomplete. These numbers do not include abortions performed in private physician's offices and medical abortions. And BC clinic data is incomplete.

(Too bad Ontario's Minister of Health Deb Matthews could care less about accurate data with her laughable response to me that she's: "sorry that the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) was unable to provide you with the statistics you were looking for." You'd think that Ms. Matthews would be embarrassed by the fact that CIHI can't supply us with accurate data. But no. She lives is an alternate universe where her government's ability to produce accurate numbers of abortions is optional...but I digress.)

CIHI has finally published Quebec clinic and hospital induced abortion data for 2011.

Quebec Number of Induced Abortions Reported by Hospitals 10,575**
Number of Induced Abortions Reported by Clinics 15,670**
Total 26,245**

As always, these numbers do not include abortions performed in private physician's offices and medical abortions.

** Ontario (clinic data only) and Quebec (clinic and hospital data) include only induced abortions covered by their respective provincial health insurance plans. Data from all other provinces/territories (including Ontario hospital data) includes all induced abortions, whether paid for by the patient or by a different health insurance plan. For example, patients with coverage under Quebec's health insurance plan receiving care in Manitoba are reported by Manitoba. However, patients with coverage under Manitoba's health insurance plan receiving care in Quebec are not reported (by either Quebec or Manitoba). 

Deb Matthews confirms closed opaque government

I heard from Minister Deb Matthews regarding my latest attempt to have her answer my many unanswered questions regarding her government's decision to hide abortion statistics.

From her response, I conclude that Deb Matthews

• doesn't care that CIHI is unable to give accurate abortion statistics;
• is aware that the abortion exclusion clause was never debated in the Legislature; 
• is unable or unwilling to share with the citizens of Ontario, the reasons she decided to exclude abortion services from FIPPA;
• is unable or unwilling to share with the citizens of Ontario, why abortion services were the only medical service excluded from the act;
• is unable or unwilling to share with the citizens of Ontario how the abortion exclusion clause enhances openness and transparency.

Here are my questions to her again:

"I have contacted CIHI on numerous occasions already about this [accurate abortion statistics]. Because of the way CIHI produces those statistics (i.e. they base their statistics on hospital discharge records and not medical billing records), they were unable to produce more accurate statistics. Therefore contacting CIHI again (as you suggest), will still not yield accurate statistics. So again I ask you, can you please provide me with a way to obtain accurate abortion statistics?

You say that "These amendments were debated and passed in the Legislature." My question was to provide the links to when the abortion exclusion clause was debated. Not to other amendments.

So I once again reviewed all 20 links on the Bill, from the link you provided me, including the transcripts of the public hearings on the bill on November 22 and 23. There were no instances in any of these documents, where the abortion exclusion was discussed, debated, or mentioned. 

Therefore I must assume that the abortion exclusion clause was not debated in the legislature. Please correct me if I am wrong about this assumption.

I asked you what rationale the government had for excluding abortion services from FIPPA. I couldn't find your response to this question in your letter. Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

I asked you why abortion was the only taxpayer funded medical service singled out for exclusion from FIPPA. I couldn't find your response to this question in your letter to me. Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

I asked you how excluding abortion services from FIPPA "enhances openness and transparency in the public sector"? Perhaps you missed my question? If so, would you be as so kind to answer it for me now?"

Here is her response to me:

Dear Ms. Maloney:

Thank you for your recent email regarding the abortion exclusion clause under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA).

I can only reiterate what I stated in my previous response to you.  The passing of the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010, that amended FIPPA, followed the customary legislative process of ensuring there was opportunity for public scrutiny, input and debate.

Public hearings were held on the bill providing interested parties with ample opportunity to raise their concerns and share their views on any issues related to the proposed legislation to be brought forward and be considered.

I'm sorry that the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) was unable to provide you with the statistics you were looking for.

Again, thank you for taking the time to write to me about this issue. 

Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Deb Matthews
Minister

From this I can only conclude that Deb Matthews knows that her government is neither open, nor accountable nor transparent; and that the abortion exclusion clause was enacted for purely ideological reasons.

When youtube collides with reality

Regarding my last response to Kathleen Wynne's repeated attempts to brush me off, I called her office today and asked to speak with her. Someone there told me that a person needs to put their request to speak to the Premier in writing. What a hoot.

Of course I've already repeatedly asked her if she intends to stop hiding abortion information under her open government initiative. In any event I've now sent her a written request to speak with her.Your queenship.

I also called Deb Matthews office and asked to speak with her about my last letter to her. Someone did call me back and apparently a response has been written, and it should go out in the next week or so. I'm honoured.

If you want a chuckle, have a look at Kathleen's "open government" video posted online:

"We're introducing an open government initiative to help create the transparent government you deserve. A government that works for you and with you...to do this we are introducing three initiatives, open data, open information and open dialogue. Open data is the foundation of open government....we want to unlock the data...to make it easy for outside parties to access".

And this:

"open information...this addresses government processes and making them more transparent...we want to give you a clear picture...of what things cost...."

Lastly:

"everything builds up to open dialogue...we want you to be able to communicate with us and tell us how you think we're doing and how things can be improved".

Kathleen really did post this video. I. Am. No. Kidding.