Kathleen Wynne still pretending "open government"

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 11

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 10

"In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens’ ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government’s accountability to the public." Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2000

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 9

“Information sharing should not be impeded because of excessive classification rules …. we must work to extinguish the belief that those who collect information own it.” -- William P. Crowell, Markle Task Force on National Security in The Information Age, testifying before the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, 8 Nov. 2005

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 8

"After I had been confirmed as federal Information Commissioner, I met with the former Commissioner, John Grace, to get his advice.  One thing he said struck me in particular; he said that in his seven years as Privacy Commissioner and eight years as Information Commissioner (a total of 15 years spent reviewing the records which government wanted to withhold from Canadians) he hadn't seen a really good secret.  My experience is much the same over the first year of my term.  For the most part, officials love secrecy because it is a tool of power and control, not because the information they hold is particularly sensitive by nature." 

John Reid, 1999

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 7

"Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety." Woodrow Wilson"

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 6

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation … is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry." - Gerard LaForest, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, in Dagg vs. Canada (1997)

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 5

"Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety." Woodrow Wilson

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 4

"I believe that a guarantee of public access to government  information is indispensable in the long run for any democratic society.... if officials make public only what they want citizens to know, then publicity becomes a sham and accountability meaningless." - Sissela Bok, Swedish philosopher, 1982

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 3

"A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both." - James Madison, 1832

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 2

"Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix." Pres. Harry Truman

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 1

"Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity" - Lord Acton

How can we discuss abortion when we don't have data?

If you Google "how many abortions are done in Ontario each year?" the first link that comes up is a four page chart by pro-abortion Joyce Arthur.

So what does this chart reveal? It reveals there is a lot we don't know about Canadian abortion statistics in general, and Ontario abortion statistics in particular. Of course we already knew this right?

What is interesting about Arthur's charts is that she makes a lot of assumptions about the rate of abortion in Ontario. Which is fair; I always have to do the same. Because when you try and discuss anything without accurate data, you have to make assumptions--you have no choice.

I won't get into why I disagree with Arthur's assumptions, as I've already done that many times before, but right now, that isn't the point. Right now the point is that if you're trying to have a meaningful conversation about anything, never mind about something with as many political, social, and financial repercussions as abortion--well it's all kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

How can she and I even talk about the data and what it means, when we don't even have the data?

In fact, in Arthur's four page analysis, she devotes quite a bit of space to the assumptions she makes about Canada's statistics, including Ontario's abortion numbers based on my freedom of information requests for 2010, the last year we have decent Ontario abortion data. And she has to make assumptions. We all do, because our data is hidden at the whim of a government who did it for political reasons. A non-accountable, non-transparent, non-open government.

As a pro-life person, how can I meaningfully refute Joyce Arthur's assertions that abortions in Ontario are going down when I can't see the data? If someone out there in google land searches for Ontario abortion numbers in Ontario, they may think rates are going up, or that abortion rates are going down, depending on whose information they read. 

If abortions are really going down, or if they're really going up, and we know which, there would be no need to speculate or assume. All of us could then meaningfully comment on the facts we see, and then we could meaningfully discuss the implications of that reality.

This is why our Charter case is so very important.

If I was still able to get abortion information through freedom of information requests (based on OHIP billings), I would be able to tell you AND the pro-abortions the following facts about abortions in Ontario:

• How many abortions are done in doctor's offices
• How many medical abortions there are
• How many fetal reductions there are
• The total number of all clinic abortions
• Gestational age (weeks) of abortions done in clinics
• Gestational age (weeks) for the large "unknown" figure for hospital abortions
• Information on the method of abortion for clinic data
• The costs of abortion to the citizens of Ontario

And then I could meaningfully comment on the implications of these facts. Now I am only left guessing. And so is Joyce Arthur. 

Medically necessary help for autism and not abortion

In 2010, Ontario spent at least 70 million dollars on medically unnecessary abortions. (2010 is the last year we have accurate statistics for, because of the Ontario government's Official Abortion Secrecy Policy.)

Now we learn that there are parents with autism, who can't get treatment for their children, and have to pay for the treatment themselves, at great personal cost.

"Antonio and Linda Dimanbro have spent over $40,000 to help their son Anthony, 7, in the absence of provincial funding. They waited over three years for treatment, from Anthony’s diagnosis at the age of two-and-a-half until last year, when a fundraisers and friends and family helped fund his treatment. Kara Onofino and her husband have poured over $60,000 into support for their son Justin, 7 — but she also noted “it’s not fair” to families who can’t afford that."

Does this make any sense at all?

That 70 million could go a long way to helping families suffering from the lack of proper medical care for their children suffering autism, help that is actually medically necessary.

Kathleen Wynne should be ashamed of herself.

Ontario Civil Liberties Association supports our freedom of expression rights

Ontario Civil Liberties Association supports our freedom of expression rights: OCLA position paper on institutional bias against pro-life campaigners in Ontario

"The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is opposed to the evident statutory and institutional bias that exists in Ontario against the free-expression rights of pro-life campaigners.... 

Regarding the said unconstitutional statute, Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contains a section (s. 65(5.7)) which explicitly excludes all information about abortions, including any statistical data and charts, from any access. This means that there is no right whatsoever in Ontario for any individual or association to access government information “relating to the provision of abortion services” [2]. 

The statutory exclusion was not justified during parliamentary discussion (members were silent on the exclusion), is contrary to the principle of transparency and accountability in a free and democratic society, and is a violation of Canada’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3]. 

The exclusion effectively prohibits expression on the excluded records, and thereby violates the Charter right to free expression of the requesters of the information [4]. 

The OCLA seeks to raise the concern that there is palpable institutional bias against pro-life advocates in Ontario and that this is harmful to society and substantively unjust towards members of the community [5]."

More here:
Civli liberties association says withholding abortion stats an affront to democracy

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.

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

Christine Elliott: hiding abortion information not on agenda

I've received repeated emails from Christine Elliott in her bid for the Conservative leadership. 

I've repeatedly responded to her, asking her what she would do to repeal the Liberals decision to hide abortion statistics.

Finally, I responded to one of her emails with this:

Dear Christine, 

I don't think you are listening. You aren't doing or saying anything about the Liberals hiding abortion information. And you don't reply to my emails about it. Nope. You're not listening. You're ignoring. You're sticking your head in the sand. Wait until the Liberals decide to hide something that you do care about. Because it will happen. Will you listen then? 

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Here is Christine's response to me:

Dear Pat, 

Thanks for taking the time to write. I apologize for the delay in getting back to you and appreciate your patience. 

I am running to be our next Leader so we can rebuild the Ontario PC Party, and so we can rebuild our province. 

I want to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.  At this time however, this is not an issue that is on my agenda for this particular leadership campaign, but I appreciate your input. I encourage you to contact the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, at the conclusion of this campaign, to further discuss this issue. 

With the right Leader and the right team, I know we can build a better future for our province and our children. 

I am ready to lead. I am ready to win. 

Sincerely,
Christine Elliott

There you have it. This affront to our democratic rights, just isn't on Christine Elliott's agenda.

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.

Mr. Harper to Ms. Wynne--two can play this game

John Ivison: That didn’t take long — Wynne shatters détente with Harper during pointed speech in Ottawa

Dear Mr. Harper,

You may have heard that Premier Kathleen Wynne has a "vision of Canada". She is telling you to increase infrastructure spending to 5% from 3.5 of GDP. That's a whopping $30 billion year gap.

If Ms. Wynne would like to tell you how to do your job, I suggest you tell her how to do hers.

Have you heard about the Ontario Liberals hidden agenda to hide abortion statistics in Ontario? Well actually, that's not quite right. It isn't a hidden agenda anymore, it's more like a reality TV show: you have to see it to believe it. All abortion related information is now excluded from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA). I am not kidding.

This means that any and all such information is now top secret in Ontario.

You know like, how many women die from abortion, what are the complication rates from abortion, how many dollars the Liberals spend on abortion, etc.? All secret.

Not what I'd call a best practice for a democracy.

So. Why don't you stick your nose into Ms. Wynne's business, just like she's stuck her nose into your business? Why don't you tell her to repeal her, sneaky, anti-democratic, hidden-agenda, sorry excuse for a law, so that democracy can be restored to Ontario.

After all. Fair is fair.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney