Only the pro-deathers get to meet with ministers, why is that?

As we already know, Dying with Dignity lobbies the government pretty much non-stop. They also repeatedly meet with Ministers of government. DWDC has met with the ministers of at least three different government departments (Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC), Justice and Health), sometimes multiple times with the department in question.

So I wondered. Have any of the main groups opposed to the "poisoning lobby" (thanks to Alec Primc from the Voice for the Children and Family Party of Slovenia for this apt description of euthanasia) also meet with any ministers? I checked out the Lobbyist database to see who was lobbying government against poisoning Canadians. There were five organizations. So I asked the Department of Justice:

Please provide the names of the people from the listed organizations below who have met with the Minister of Justice (and or his or her representative) regarding MAID, and the dates and details of those meetings, including who was present at these meetings. Dates from June 2016 to February 27, 2026: Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada. EVANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA. Christian Reformed churches in Canada (CRCNA Canada Corporation). Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada, and any other religious organization.

The response I received:

I regret to inform you that a search of the records under the control of the Department of Justice Canada has revealed none relating to the subject of your request. 

I submitted the same ATIP to Health Canada. Although there was one meeting identified with ARPA, it was not with the Minister of Health.

So the only voices the ministers of Justice and Health listen to when it comes to killing its citizens by poisoning them, are the people who advocate for, and not those opposed to, killing people by lethal injection. That sounds awfully biased to me.

Stop normalizing suicide as a solution to suffering

"ARPA Canada urges the government to stop and reverse the expansion of MAiD. Canada already has one of the most permissive euthanasia regimes in the world. Canada has utterly failed to protect vulnerable Canadians. Instead, we have taken a fast track to devaluing the lives of the sick and disabled and to normalizing suicide as a solution to suffering."

Dear Mona Fortier,

Please read this excellent press release from ARPA, regarding expanding euthanasia to minors.

On the one hand we say we are against suicide. On the other hand, we support suicide with MAID. You can't have it both ways.

As my representative in Parliament I am asking you to not support any expansions to this deadly policy.

I am also asking that you support some real concrete, tangible, and measurable improvements to both palliative care and mental health supports for Canadians. I know people in both these categories who would greatly benefit from these improvements, especially since they are unable to get these kinds of help now. But they can get MAID. 

It is both a tragedy and unethical that we allow and promote MAID instead of providing actual care to people who need it.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Ottawa

The dead and broken babies amongst the leaves

40 days for life continues in Ottawa today. Maureen, Barb and I joined other members of our Church, along with the Sisters of the Queenship of Mary, to pray at the abortion killing site in Ottawa.

ARPA put up their flag display at the Supreme Court of Canada, representing the 100,000 babies killed each year through abortion.

That's 100,000 human beings destroyed before birth every year.

We prayed the Rosary to our Blessed Mother to protect all pre-born children from this continued slaughter of the innocents. We also prayed the St. Michael Prayer. Seemed appropriate.

I couldn't help but notice the dead autumn leaves surrounding the little pink and blue flags. Kind of prophetic, don't you think?

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

Stop Censorship Tour begins in Ottawa Jan 7, 2017

It doesn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice. You should be concerned about the Ontario Government's decision to hide all abortion information from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests.

Together with ARPA Canada I am taking the Ontario Government to court, to challenge my freedom of expression rights--rights that were trampled on when the Government secretly changed the law which previously allowed access to all abortion information.

This meant I could no longer request the number and cost of abortions performed in Ontario every year. It is now hidden from the public. This is information about only one tax-payer funded medical procedure--abortion. This government does not hide information about any other medical procedure. Not yet anyway.

This information has been unavailable through FOI requests since 2012 (the last year we have data for is 2010).

This week We Need a Law begins a series of open events to explain our case. The Stop Censorship tour begins this Saturday here in Ottawa from 7:30 to 9:00 at the Ottawa Reformed Presbyterian Church, 466 Woodland Ave, Ottawa.

Other venues in Ontario will take place around the province.

If we want an open, transparent, accountable government; if we want to protect our charter rights; if we want to be able to freely debate and comment on what our government does on our behalf, we have to fight for it. I hope you can attend one of the information sessions.

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.

ARPA's Lighthouse news

Check out this week's edition of ARPA's Lighthouse News.

Last week, ARPA released the latest in its series of “Respectfully Submitted” policy papers.  This one deals with Climate Change. On the feature this week, ARPA policy analyst Colin Postma outlines some of the highlights of the paper, and responds to some of the criticism it has generated.

In the news, Trinity Western University had another victory last week in its efforts to establish a law school at its campus near Langley, BC. The BC Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Law Society of BC which would have prevented graduates from TWU’s law school from practicing in BC. The ruling re-instates an earlier decision which would allow the school to go ahead.

ARPA was an intervenor in this case and on the program this week, we talk with lawyer André Schutten about the Court’s ruling and what it may mean in the broader context of an issue that seems quite likely to be headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

The Canadian Institute for Health Information has released some more abortion statistics. The total number of hospital abortions done across the country in calendar year 2014 was 33,931; that was down slightly from the 35,003 the year before. However, the figures are incomplete, because they don’t include a whole swath of statistics which are being deliberately repressed by Freedom of Information laws in at least two provinces. We speak with pro-life blogger Patricia Maloney about the numbers.  

A church youth group near Chatham Ontario put up a pro-life display last month. 1000 crosses in a field – each one representing 100 babies aborted in Canada every year. Vandals knocked down every cross on the weekend of December 6^th. Those crosses are back up now, and the youth decided to make the rebuilding project about more than just the original intent.  

Also on the program this week, some expressly Christian analysis of Donald Trump’s plan to bar all Muslim immigrationinto the U.S.A. as a way to fight terrorism. We speak to Dr. Scott Masson from Tyndale University College in Toronto about what Trump’s posturing has done to the broader context of the U.S. Presidential race.

ARPA Canada proposes government use "notwithstanding clause" on assisted suicide and euthanasia

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada July 7, 2015 ARPA CANADA UNVEILS DRAFT LEGISLATION PROHIBITING ASSISTED SUICIDE AND EUTHANASIA AND INVOKING THE NOTWITHSTANDING CLAUSE

Ottawa - On the heels of the Canadian Medical Association unveiling draft protocols for an assisted suicide regime, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada has published a draft euthanasia law (http://arpacanada.ca/drafteuthanasialaw.pdf) which would uphold Canada’s absolute prohibitions of assisted suicide and euthanasia. ARPA Canada was an intervenor in the Supreme Court case which struck down Canada’s assisted suicide law on February 6, 2015 and gave Parliament just one year to fill the void. The organization also published a policy report for Parliamentarians following the Supreme Court decision. “On numerous occasions, including just five years ago, all of the major parties in Canada’s Parliament have voted to uphold our law against assisted suicide,” said ARPA Canada’s Executive Director Mark Penninga. “Parliament has the constitutional means to pass a new law which continues to prohibit all assisted suicide, and it can do that while taking meaningful steps to promote palliative and end of life care.” The draft bill invokes Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly referred to as the notwithstanding clause. This section gives Parliament the ability to pass legislation notwithstanding a court’s interpretation of section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the Charter. In this case, the draft legislation is cited notwithstanding how the Supreme Court interpreted the “right to life” of section 7 of the Charter to allow state-endorsed killing. “If Parliament refuses to even consider invoking Section 33, Canada’s nine unelected Supreme Court judges have effectively become the supreme lawmakers of Canada,” explained ARPA Canada’s Legal Counsel André Schutten. “The notwithstanding clause was added to the Charter to balance the power of the judicial and legislative branches of civil government. But for the clause to have effect, it must be exercised. It is hard to conceive of a more worthy time to invoke Section 33 than now, when the basic right to life of Canada’s most vulnerable citizens are at risk.” ARPA’s draft law includes a lengthy preamble which provides sixteen reasons why such a strident step is principled, constitutional, and necessary.

- 30 - Interview Requests: Mark Penninga is available throughout the day for phone or email interviews. Contact him directly at 778-210-0376 or Mark@ARPACanada.ca ARPA Canada’s legal counsel André Schutten is available for comment and in studio interviews in Ottawa or via phone/email. To arrange an interview contact Niki Pennings, Administrative Assistant, at 1-866-691-2772, ext. 3 or Niki@ARPACanada.ca

DRAFT

First Session, Forty-second Parliament, 63-64 Elizabeth II, 2015-2016 STATUTES OF CANADA 2016CHAPTER ___ Bill C-_____ An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision inCarter v. Canada (Attorney General)

Preamble Whereas it is Parliament’s duty to protect human life and uphold the inviolable right to life of all human beings; Whereas the Parliament of Canada has grave concerns about the inherent risks that a legalized euthanasia or assisted suicide regime pose to the lives of vulnerable people; Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the devastating social harm caused by the normalization of suicide and the legalization of assisted suicide and euthanasia; Whereas legalizing physician-assisted suicide and/or euthanasia would corrupt the practice of medicine and the doctor-patient relationship; Whereas it is of utmost importance, by discouraging suicide, to protect the inherent human dignity and value possessed by each Canadian person by reason of everyone being a member of the human family, regardless of disease, disability or discomfort; Whereas certain judges have failed to appreciate overwhelming social scientific evidence on the inherent harms and unacceptable risks to the lives of vulnerable, disabled, elderly and sick Canadians when euthanasia and assisted suicide are legalized; Whereas comprehensive reviews of all other jurisdictions that have legalized assisted suicide and/or euthanasia prove that assisted deaths continue, and even increase, in the face of evidence that legislated safeguards are ignored; Whereas there is no reason to believe that Canada would be any different should euthanasia or assisted suicide be legalized; Whereas legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide will result in a two-tiered justice system, providing robust Criminal Code protections for the lives of able-bodied persons, but weak Criminal Code protections for the lives of people with disabilities and illnesses; Whereas striking down the Criminal Code provision denying the right toconsent to have another end your life, but only limiting that nullification to those who are suffering or disabled, is a shocking and discriminatory value statement about the life and worth of people with severe disabilities, pain or illness; Whereas the Parliament of Canada rejects the proposition that the deaths of some innocent, vulnerable people in a legalized euthanasia regime is an acceptable balance to allow others the freedom to have unhindered assistance in committing suicide at a convenient time and place; Whereas the Parliament of Canada has conducted holistic, in-depth, cross-partisan studies, hearing from all segments of society on the ethical, moral, legal, philosophical and policy implications on the issue of legalizing assisted suicide and euthanasia and, having studied the issue more thoroughly than a court can or ever has, concluding that only an absolute prohibition on allowing some people to kill other people, absent self-defence, can adequately and equally protect the lives of all Canadians; Whereas the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Supreme Court of Canada failed to give any meaningful recognition of the votes of Parliament at different times in the last two decades, comprising clear, direct, cross-party votes against the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide; Whereas section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867 gives exclusive authority to Parliament to make laws in relation to the Criminal Law; Whereas that same section of the Constitution precludes judges at any level of court to legislate their social preferences from the bench; And whereas section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides Parliament the constitutional authority to remedy a policy change by the courts, notwithstanding their interpretation of various sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; Now, therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

SHORT TITLE

Short title 1. This Act may be cited as the Restoring Full and Equal Protection of Vulnerable Canadian Lives Act.

R.S., c. C-46 CRIMINAL CODE

R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s.14 Charter override R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 224; R.S.C. 1985, c. 27 (1 st Supp.), s.7(3) Charter override 2. Section 14 of the Criminal Code is amended by adding the following: 14.1 Section 14 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11. 3. Section 241 of the Act is amended by adding the following: 241.1 Section 241 operates notwithstanding the interpretation by the Supreme Court of Canada of provisions of section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982, (U.K.) 1982 c11.

REVIEW AND REPORT

Review Report 4. (1) Within four years after this section comes into force, a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of this Act shall be undertaken by such committee of the House of Commons as may be designated or established by the House for that purpose. (2) The committee referred to in subsection (1) shall, within six months after a review is undertaken pursuant to that subsection or within such further time as the House may authorize, submit a report on the review to the Speaker of the House, including a statement of any changes the committee recommends.

COMING INTO FORCE

One day after royal assent 5. The provisions of this Act come into force one day after the day onwhich this Act receives royal assent.

DRAFT

ARPA Canada, P.O. Box 1377 STN B , Ottawa, K1P 5R4 Please click here if you wish to unsubscribe from ARPA Canada media releases.

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

Taking care of our elderly - a call to action

My sister Maureen and I have been humbled and blessed. Three weeks ago we started volunteering at a long term care facility near our home.

When we signed up we told the volunteer coordinator that we would like to do one on one visits with residents. She asked us which residents we would like to visit. We both wanted to work with those who were in most need. That of course was the Alzheimer and dementia floor.

For us to get to know some of the residents Lucie suggested we participate in their activity program for a few weeks. So we have been doing that.

Many of the residents seemed unaware that we were there. Others seemed withdrawn, yet lit up and smiled during the activity when they were asked if they would like to participate. Many did, and some were just content to watch. These are all lovely people. Worthy of human dignity and care.

Today I read ARPA's "Respectfully Submitted" Policy report for Parliamentarians. It is on assisted suicide and euthanasia. I couldn't help but wonder what might happen to these precious people in this home, when assisted suicide becomes law in Canada.

I will write to my MP Mauril Belanger using ARPA's easy mailer (see below). I hope you will too.

This new policy report is a way for you to draw this issue to the attention of your MP. This is important, as there is less than a year before Canada is left with no laws at all restricting assisted suicide. We have provided 3 EasyMail letters and want to encourage you to send one of these to your MP. We were discouraged to see only 14 EasyMail letters sent last month on this issue - from across Canada. We can do better!

Before you send your EasyMail letter, please read the report yourself - you should find it well worth your time. Then, choose one of the following letters to send today:

1.     Letter 1: Request MP to read and respond to report

2.     Letter 2: Shorter request for MP to read report

3.     Letter 3: More detailed call for MP to do the right thing (no reference to policy report)

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.

WeNeedaLAW at Queen's Park

It's a cold blustery day here at Queen's Park in Toronto. Where our Ontario Legislature sits. Where our politicians make laws. 

WeNeedaLAW volunteers were out in full force this morning depositing 100,000 flags on the lawn. To represent the 100,000 babies lost to abortion every year in Canada. A tragedy by any other name.

Unfortunately the organizers weren't allowed to insert the flags into the lawn, but had to lay them down instead. The message is still the same. Pre-born children die every year in Canada because of abortion. The message is what it is. A tragedy.

I hope Kathleen Wynne was watching.

This afternoon at 2:00 ARPA Canada will be holding a press conference inside the legislature to announce a legal challenge about one particular law that passed right here at Queen's Park. A very undemocratic law. Stay tuned.

ARPA launches legal challenge in Toronto

For immediate release from the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada April 22, 2015 ARPA CANADA TO MAKE ANNOUNCEMENT ABOUT LEGAL ACTION TORONTO – In an afternoon press conference in the Queen’s Park Press Gallery, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada will provide details on a constitutional challenge they filed earlier in the day. Niki Pennings, spokesperson for WeNeedaLAW.ca, will also be speaking about why WeNeedaLAW.ca has placed 100,000 pink and blue flags on the lawn in Queen’s Park. “The 100,000 flags represent the approximately 100,000+ human lives that are ended by abortion every year in Canada,” said Ms. Pennings. “The courts have consistently spoken to the responsibility of government to enact laws that protect pre-born human rights and the Ontario government is not exempt from this responsibility.” Over one hundred and fifty volunteers helped place the 100,000 pink and blue flags at Queen’s Park. The flags cover the entire south-east lawn. As for the constitutional challenge, André Schutten, lawyer for ARPA Canada would only say that, “The court action we are initiating is about justice. Justice requires accountability. Each victim of abortion is a human being. Not only does every victim need to be accounted for, but public policy itself should be open to evaluation and scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter.” The flag display will be set up until 4:00pm. What: ARPA Canada Press Conference When: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 Where: Queen’s Park Press Gallery Time: 2:00 PM

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.

100 crosses = 1,000 abortions in Canada every year

March 31, 2014

Ottawa, ON -Last week a local group in Elgin County, ON set up a massive abortion memorial along Hwy. 3 just outside of Aylmer.

“Roadside memorials are commonplace alongside many thoroughfares in Canada. They serve as respectful reminders of people who once were alive, and are now gone,” said Mike Schouten, director of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

“Similar to the many other abortion memorials that continue to be set up across the country, this memorial consists of hay bales and crosses. Each of the 100 crosses represents one thousand lives lost to abortion in Canada every year,” continued Schouten.

The hay bales and crosses are accompanied by signs from WeNeedaLAW.ca and ARPA Oxford. There are also pictures of a pre-born child and a Bible passage.

“We applaud ARPA Oxford for this initiative. As a nation we are more and more recognizing that abortion is an injustice against vulnerable members of the human family and something needs to be done about Canada's lack of protection for pre-born children at any stage of development,” concluded Schouten.

Time to put Quebec's euthanasia bill out of its misery

The Time to Stop the Euthanasia Train from Running off the Tracks is Now!

• 
• 

Published on Friday, 21 February 2014 08:55

Bill 52 Update: By God's grace, Quebec's euthanasia bill was stalled by the opposition Liberals on Thursday, preventing it from being passed. The governing PQ party pushed hard for a vote so that it could become law before they called an election. Now they will be forced to decide whether to proceed with an election call. Either way, we can be thankful that some time has been bought. Please pray earnestly for a softening of hearts in Quebec and across this land.

Now is the Time to Keep the Euthanasia Train from Running off the Tracks!

By Mark Penninga, ARPACanada.ca: In her article "assisted suicide – what could possibly go wrong" the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente looks at how Belgium's and Holland's euthanasia laws are running off the rails. As Quebec is on the verge of legalizing euthanasia, she rightly concludes that our ethical dilemmas may only be just beginning. And that is it. End of article.

Wente's uncomfortable musing about what kind of reasons are compelling enough to justify euthanasia shows why Canada needs to stop rushing to make decisions about life and death.

The central problem with trying to determine what justifies state-sanctioned death is that it puts the value of human life on an arbitrary scale. At the top of the scale are the terminally ill – those for whom death seems imminent. A little lower we find those with life-altering diseases. Although Canada isn't quite ready to talk about it yet, Belgium and Holland reveal that it only takes a decade to expand the scale to include the depressed, physiologically troubled, and even infants born with a cleft-palette. By that point there is some recognition that the train has run off the rails. But what exactly was that line where life ought to be protected and valued?

Western society forgets its lessons so quickly. It was less than 70 years ago that we looked at this exact question. Dr. Leo Alexander was an investigator in the Nuremberg Trials and also contributed to writing the Nuremberg Code. In 1949 Dr. Alexander wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine where he revealed some telling observations from the trials:

Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitudes of physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic to the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted, and finally all non-Germans.

In other words, expanding euthanasia to children is not the end of the scale. This is not merely a "slippery slope." It is a logical progression. The euthanasia movement does what it can to sterilize and even celebrate what it stands for, using terms like "dying with dignity." But putting a white coat on the person administering the needle doesn't change what is happening. Society is sanctioning the death of humans whom we (the strong) determine should not be worth living.

The train runs off the tracks as soon as we decide that some lives are not worth living. When we grant that human dignity is lost because of a disease, we make the value of human life into something that is arbitrary and violable. This undermines basic human rights, which presuppose inalienable worthiness of life for all humanity, regardless of our vulnerabilities.

If we don't want Canada to look like what we see in Belgium, the time to prevent that is now, before we allow euthanasia for even a few.