Kathleen and Dalton: eighth wonder of the world

This is good. Brian Lilley asks why Kathleen Wayne isn't behind bars yet. I'd like to know why as well.

Kathleen and Dalton are also responsible for hiding abortion statistics. He started it and she keeps on doing it. What a pair. Seems she is part and parcel of the Dalton McGuinty template. A clone of him really.

But Ontario voters just keep voting them back in. Hard to understand really. I wish someone would explain it to me.

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.

Liberal's "values" aren't Ontario's values

Ontario is having an election. Who should we vote for?

The Liberals have squandered our money for political gain (you know the sordid story I don't have to repeat it here).

Then they began the process of dismantling our access to information rights with their abortion exclusion clause. What's next, we don't know, but it will be something because we can't trust them. Then Dalton McGuinty jumped ship before the poop hit the fan and covered him with sewage.

Andrea Horwath supported the despicable Liberals until their use to the NDP soured and Ms. Horwath decided curdled milk wasn't her style anymore.

The Conservatives were soundly snoring when the Liberals snuck the abortion exclusion clause into FIPPA, and are still asleep and refusing to admit they never saw it coming or even that it came.

We know the Liberals haven't a clue about much, and I couldn't trust them as far as I could throw them. The NDP are lefty personified although the Liberals give them a good run for their money--or should I say our money. And the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the abortion exclusion clause hoping I'll just go away I guess (wait until they see how I pester them if they win they ain't seen nothing yet).

So who the heck are we supposed to vote for?

I agonized over this for some time now. I have come to only one conclusion. I have to vote Conservative. No person in Ontario should vote Liberal.

The clincher for me was when Madeleine's re-election brochure came in my mail. This is what it said:

"The Liberal Party of Ontario has a strong program to promote economic recovery and ensure social progress in our province while at the some time keeping the focus on balancing our budget. I am proud to be part of Kathleen Wynne's team. She has guided our government with values that are shared by Ontarians. I know that under her leadership we can meet the challenges of the future. (emphasis mine)."

I. Am. Not. Kidding.

Government data belongs to the people

Kathleen Wynne wants to know what we think about open and transparent government.

She wants to

"unlock public data so that you can help us solve problems and find new ways of doing things.  I believe that government data belongs to the people of Ontario and so we will make government data open by default, limiting access only to safeguard privacy, security and confidentiality."

Good idea.

Here is a survey where you can ask her to undo Dalton McGuinty's decision to hide abortion services.

I just did.

Open and transparent government is coming to Ontario

Dear Ms. Wynne,

I am very happy to hear that you intend to provide Ontario citizens with more access to information and finally give us open and transparent government.

This is a great initiative and I fully support you on this. It is also long overdue.

As you know, in 2012 Mr. Mcguinty quietly excluded the costs of all abortion services from the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA). I learned this when my last access to information request on abortion services to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care was denied. Previous requests had all been granted.

As you probably also know, this was the only medical service in Ontario to be excluded from FIPPA, which is very odd indeed. Why would Mr. McGuinty exclude abortion services, but not heart operations or hip replacement surgery? We have no idea because he never told us why.

We do know that it had nothing to do with privacy concerns, because the data I was asking for didn't include any private information on patients, hospitals or doctors. I only wanted totals of procedures done and dollars spent. So this has been a real mystery to all Ontarions who believe open and transparent is a good thing.

Spending our tax dollars in secret isn't a very transparent business model. I'm sure you will agree.

Considering that in 2010 Ontario paid between $30 and 50 million for abortions, un-hiding this information would go a long way towards achieving the fiscal responsibility you are looking for.

Can you please tell me if your plans for open and transparent government will include the lifting of the secret curtain on abortion services in Ontario?

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Washington State and access to information

I received this information below from someone who lives in Washington State, about the access to information situation there. It seems that Washington's situation is far more transparent and accountable to the people than ours is.

(Notice in particular the quote below in their state code. We need a clause like that in our FIPPA.)

Washington State is a lot like Canada when it comes to abortion, a near lawless wasteland. But the one good thing is the Public Records Law. I'd say we have the strongest of all 50 states. This preamble or "construction" is actually in the state code:

"The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. In the event of conflict between the provisions of this chapter and any other act, the provisions of this chapter shall govern."

Basically, if you ask for a document the state has, they have to give it to you, as long as they redact any personally identifying information. And they automatically get punished if they don't, so you really don't have to work very hard to get records. The onus is on them, not on the requestor. 

On abortion, it turns out that doctors report every abortion to the state Department of Health. This data is published in statistical form every year by the DOH. I have previously requested the raw data and received it, but the abortionists once up on a time got a law prohibiting the release of any information identifying the abortion clinic or abortionist, so that stuff was redacted/removed.

But if they want to hide it, I want to see it.

So it occurred to me that if they won't give me the clinic info, I could do an end-run around their restriction by requesting the data by clinic. Legal technicalities! So I asked for all abortion records where the facility is X. And then did that for a whole bunch of clinics. This worked on the first one (a non-profit hospital chain out here). So then I did a batch of requests including Planned Parenthood and the major free-standing abortion mills. Now when the state is about to release info it has that is about you, they must notify you. So all the abortion clinics were notified that this data was about to be released. It turns out they all got together to sue the government not to release the data (which is their legal right.) 

So that's where we're at. So legally the government and I are actually co-defendants, and most of the abortion clinics in the state are suing us to prevent release of records. It turns out that there is case law where the state Supreme Court has ruled on almost identical legal issues, so it should be cut and dry.

Ontario's information commissioner has a good idea

Yesterday in the Ottawa Citizen, I detailed my case against the Ontario government regarding the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care's decision to withhold abortion information from my Freedom of Information request.

Today there is a response by Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner Ann Cavoukian.

She says:

although information may be excluded from FIPPA, there is nothing precluding the government from voluntarily releasing non-identifiable statistical information. Those wishing to expand the types of information to be released may seek a change in the law.

I agree. A change in the law is exactly what is needed here.

This amendment to the Freedom of Information Act, brought about by the Broader Public Accountability Act, was a very very bad law. It is completely contrary to the spirit of both these laws. Just look at the names of these laws.

If the government had been up front about what they were doing, instead of being sneaky about it, they would have renamed FIPPA to the Suppression of Information Act and their new bill would have been called the Narrower Public Accountability Act. At least then we would have known what bus hit us.

Op-Ed: Ontario’s information isn’t free

Published in today's Ottawa Citizen

All of us living in Ontario are well aware of the numerous political fiascos attributed to the current Ontario government. There were the gas plants cancellations done for political gain, followed by the deletion of emails to hide what went on with those cancellations, to name but two.

There is another, perhaps more fundamental legacy this government will leave us, that for the most part has gone completely unnoticed. Yet it probably affects each and every one of us on a far more personal level than those mentioned above.

 

It involves our ability to know what our government is doing, and how much money they spend doing it. This situation, if allowed to continue, could prevent us from knowing how much the government spends on future debacles.

 

For the lay man and woman like myself, one of the few tools we have to participate in the democratic process is through access to information requests. Within certain parameters, like not being able to see any personal information, all citizens in a democracy like Canada can see government documents by doing Access to Information and Privacy requests for federal information or provincially in Ontario, by Freedom of Information requests.

 

As a pro-life blogger, I frequently do ATIPs and FOIs of various government departments and ministries. I find out myriad facts about abortion, then comment on my blog about what I have learned, becoming part of the new media.

 

In March 2012 I sent an FOI request to the Ontario Ministry of Health, looking for abortion statistics. I was surprised when my request was denied, since all my previous FOI requests had been granted. It is important to emphasize that I was asking for aggregate information only. I was not asking for any personal data like patients’ names, doctors’ names or even hospital names.

 

I asked for totals of abortions performed, and dollars billed by doctors for the “Medical management of non-viable fetus or intra-uterine fetal demise between 14 and 20 weeks gestation … broken down by hospitals, clinics, and physicians’ office.”

 

I learned that, between my latest request and my previous request, that the government had quietly slipped a clause into the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that would exclude abortion services from all future FOIs.

 

This in itself was troubling, but what was worse was that all my subsequent research indicated that there had been no debate in the legislature, no opposition party flag-raising, and no public consultations on the change.

 

The reason it was done has never been satisfactorily explained by the government, except to say the information was “highly sensitive.” My guess is that they felt the subject was just too controversial, so we should be prevented from knowing how many abortions are being performed and at what cost. Remember that abortions are paid for by taxpayers. Regardless of whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, shouldn’t all of us know how and where our tax dollars are being spent?

 

The whole thing seemed rather Orwellian to me.

I appealed the government’s decision to hide these statistics to the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner. I lost the appeal and was left with two choices: I either drop the case or I could ask for a judicial review.

 

I chose the latter. This means I am taking the Ontario government to court.

 

I will ask the court to review, among other points, the following: did the IPC fail to consider and address my rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — in particular, my Charter right to freedom of expression? And was the effect of the IPC’s interpretation of the exclusion clause a violation of the principle of open government?

 

The implications of this change to FIPPA could have significant ramifications to taxpayers in the future. It raises the troubling question: if the government can at the stroke of a pen exclude abortion services from our scrutiny, what else might they exclude in the future? What about the costs of those cancelled gas plants? Maybe they would put in an exclusion clause for that next time. In fact, anything at all that the government decides is too controversial could be the subject of potential exclusion clauses.

 

I am hopeful that I win the case. It would be a win for all of us.

 

Here is what former Canadian information commissioner John Reid said about access to information:

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.

The hidden cost of abortion in Ontario

(This article appeared in the Fall 2012 issue of Canadian Physicians for Life, Vital Signs)

In January 2012, the Ontario Government quietly shut down access to all information on abortion services. This was accomplished by an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), as part of Bill 122: An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. (1)

This is the clause that was added to the Act:

"(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17)"

Why was this change made?

There are two background stories that will provide the answer to this question.

First. Officially, the Ministry of Health and Long Term-care (MOH) stated that the clause was added because "Records relating to abortion services are highly sensitive and that is why a decision was made to exempt these records". (2)

This statement is disingenuous since as numerous writers have already pointed out, all kinds of medical services are "highly sensitive", but are still subject to access to Freedom of Information rules. So why was this the only medical service singled out?

The more plausible reason for the change is that due to previous access to information requests made by this writer, we were discovering very high numbers of abortions being performed in Ontario, numbers much higher than being officially reported by the Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI). In fact, these FOI requests (based on OHIP billings and not hospital records like CIHI uses) were identifying abortion numbers a full 53% higher than CIHI's numbers. (3)
(Note: CIHI statistics do not include abortions performed in private physician's offices. As well, it is voluntary for clinics to report data.)

CIHI reported 28,765 abortions in Ontario for 2010 (4), while my FOIs had hit 44,091 abortions and was about to climb again with my latest request for service code P001: "Medical management of non-viable fetus or intra-uterine fetal demise between 14 and 20 weeks". However this FOI request was denied because of the exclusion clause added to FIPPA in January.

Second. The group Echo, which is funded by Ontario tax payers, put together a so-called "Abortion Expert Panel" to study abortion access in Ontario (5). By their own admission, the panel was comprised of only pro-choice experts (6). This biased tax funded group advocates for more access to abortions, and for more access to second trimester abortions (7). Echo also lists these pro-abortion resources as sources of information:

National Abortion Federation
Canadians for Choice
Canadian Federation for Sexual Health
Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
Medical Students for Choice
Gynuity Health Projects (medical abortion advocates)

If a government is paying abortion experts to advocate for increased access to abortions, then it's agenda will be derailed if access to information requests divulge the inconvenient truth that Ontario is already performing far more abortions than officially reported.

Our best numbers to date are that 44,091 abortions were preformed in 2010. With an average cost of $1,600 (8), that's $70,545,600 Ontario taxpayers spent destroying preborn children in 2010 alone. So in a time of fiscal restraint when expenditures are being slashed and doctors and teachers are being asked to reduce their salaries, it would become increasingly difficult to explain to the public why we need to pay more to an already lucrative abortion industry.

The solution to this dilemma was to ensure that all abortion information--the numbers of abortions being performed; the types of abortions; and their escalating costs--was hidden from public scrutiny.

If we don't know how many abortions are being performed we remain ignorant--and quiet--about the cost of those abortions.

Below are the numbers of procedures done for specific Service Codes/Diagnostic codes for 2010. This is the kind of information that we will be prevented from obtaining in the future because of this change to FIPPA.

Footnotes:
(1) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90f31_e.htm#BK83
(2) http://www.nationalpost.com/Ontario+cuts+access+abortion+data/7068507/story.html
(3) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2011/12/ontario-abortion-doctors-very-busy-in.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/05/revised-2010-ontario-abortions-tell-sad.html
(4) http://www.cihi.ca/CIHI-ext-portal/pdf/internet/TA_10_ALLDATATABLES20120417_EN
(5) Abortion Expert Panel Report: Recommendations to Improve Abortion Services in Ontario
http://www.echo-ontario.ca/sites/default/files/Abortion%20Expert%20panel%20report%20final%20format_0.pdf
(6) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2011/12/pro-life-experts-need-not-apply.html
(7) INDUCED ABORTION IN ONTARIO: CASE SCENARIOS1
http://www.echo-ontario.ca/sites/default/files/saas%20scenarios%20april%202011%20final.pdf
(8) http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/archives/story.html?id=57816457-0bde-439e-97f2-195e979fbf0d&p=2
(9) http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/06/dont-let-numbers-fool-you.html
(10) Improving Access to Abortion Services in Ontario, Information for Women and Proposed System Changes
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25006/310401.pdf
Improving Access to Abortion Services in Ontario, Recommendations for the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
http://www.ontla.on.ca/library/repository/mon/25006/310394.pdf

A couple of additional notes on the Echo reports:

1) There is a contradiction in Echo's literature regarding short-term abortion complication rates. In three (5, 10) of the four Echo reports it states that "Abortion is a safe procedure with less than a 1% complication rate".
Yet in the Case Scenario report (7, 9), the percentages for short term complication rates are actually much higher at 6.95% to 8.05%.

2) Echo also recommends that: "Sexual and reproductive health topics, abortion counselling, and abortion procedures are part of the core content of medical and nursing schools’ curricula and supported by core education in medical ethics. Practical training is provided to medical students and primary care practitioners".)

Dear Mr. Hudak, remember me?

Dear Mr. Hudak,

I wanted to write you again, and give you an update on the McGuinty government's stealth attack on Freedom of Information (FOI) in Ontario.

You never responded to my last letter on this issue. Neither did your health critic Christine Elliott. In fact, I also sent letters to three of your other MPPs regarding this horrid situation, Mr. Randy Hillier, Mr. John O'Toole and Mr. Rick Nicholls. By snail mail no less. None of them responded to me either. Funny that.

If one was a conspiracy theorist, one might even wonder if someone told them to keep quiet on this (apparently) touchy topic.

In any event, since you and your Conservatives did nothing to stop this fiasco, I thought I'd find out for myself what went on, when all of this occurred.

So I sent in another FOI to the Ministry of Health and asked for this:
"copies of any and all information (i.e. briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents) relating to this recent abortion exclusion clause in Bill 122, An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector. Specifically, referring to this clause 65 (5.7): "This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services. 2010, c. 25, s. 24 (17).". As well, I would like to see any and all information (i.e. briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents) that may not specifically refer to the above clause, but that does refer to "abortion" or "abortion services" and that resulted in this eventual exclusion clause which came into effect on January 1, 2012."

What do you think I got back? Not much (see below). Why? Because of these reasons:
• Section 12 (Cabinet Records), some of the records would reveal the substance of cabinet's deliberations or contain draft legislation.
• s. 19 (a)(b) (Solicitor-Client Privilege), all records contain Solicitor-Client Privilege.
• Section 13 (1) (Advice to Government), some records contain recommendations.
• Non-Responsive to request, the records contain information about issues other than the abortion exclusion.

I have a suggestion for you. Maybe you could do something about this. Maybe when you try and get elected next time, maybe you could follow the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario's philosophy regarding Access to Information:
"Access to information is a fundamental and necessary democratic right.

The values underlying freedom of information (FOI) laws, regardless of their jurisdiction, are quite simple — open, transparent, accountable and citizen-driven government. Stated simply, FOI legislation is based on a presumption that information should be widely available and accessible to the public. Governments throughout the world have recognized that citizens of a democratic state have the right to know what their government is doing, and to hold it responsible for its actions and inactions. Accordingly these rights have been enshrined in legislation providing for, and protecting, public access to government-held information."

And Mr. Hudak, you could:

a) reverse this secret abortion exclusion clause and restore our "right" to participate in the democratic process, and

b) ensure that our right to access information is granted all citizens of Ontario.

You never know. A little "openness, transparency and accountability" goes a long way. It might even get you elected.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

National Post shows fetuses in newspaper

This article in Saturday's National Post about Canada's abortion stats elicited these letters today.

Warning to readers: graphic content of fetuses.

Thank you Mr. Klees

Dear Mr. Klees,

Thank you. Thank you for being honest. Thank you for admitting you dropped the ball on Bill 122. The bill into which, Mr. McGgunty snuck the now infamous abortion exclusion clause.

Thank you for saying that: "we should all have the right to know what is happening in our hospitals whether it's knee operations, or whether its hip replacements or whether it's abortions. I think that the tax payer is footing the bill. I believe we have the right to know; there should be transparency and accountability."

While I hold Premier Dalton McGuinty and Heath Minister Deb Matthews responsible for this full frontal assault on free and open access to information in Ontario, with all due respect, your Leader Tim Hudak and Health critic Christine Elliott are not blameless. They did nothing to stop this attack on our access to information rights.

At least you had the courage to stand up, and while the camera was rolling, admit that you missed it. I like that. I like courage. I like honesty. These are very attractive qualities in a politician. Too bad more politicians don't hold these old-fashioned virtues.

And can you tell Mr. Hudak and Ms. Elliott for me, that if they're bored sometime, tell them to have a look at the video here and here. They might learn something about what this honesty and courage looks like. You know, it's never too late to admit when you dropped the ball.

Well that's it for now. Keep up the good work.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Time for a change in Ontario politics

Yes, Dalton McGuinty has resigned and pro-rogued the Ontario Legislature. Good riddance I say.

But what about those Conservatives?

This morning Lowell Green spoke to Conservative MPP, Lisa MacLeod.

Mr. Green and his listeners want the 37 Conservatives to take back the Legislature, show up there, and govern without the Liberals. Better than nothing I guess. But all Ms. MacLeod could do was provide a whole whack of excuses why the Conservatives can't do that, and as listeners observed, she seemed to be just mouthing the party line, sticking to prescribed talking points.

Are we surprised? With the recent slumber party the Conservatives partook in when Mr. McGuinty and company did a stealth attack on the Legislature with the passage of Bill 122, what did we expect this time? Some actual good old-fashioned action, to you know, so something? Apparently not.

When Mr. Hudak did nothing when the snooze fest was happening under his nose with the hiding of abortion statistics, nobody even noticed because the Conservatives were all asleep. They said nothing. They did nothing.

After this happened, I emailed Christine Elliott, the Conservative Health critic. Three times. This is what I asked her:

"As you know, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and effective January 1, 2012, section 65 of the Act was amended to exclude records relating to the provision of abortion services.

I understand that you told the National Post that as long as the identities of the people involved were protected, there’s no reason to withhold these abortion statistics.

As the Ontario PC health critic, can you tell me why you did not vote against Bill 122, and yet you are now publicly criticizing it? Can you also tell me why not a word was said in the debates or in committee about this censorship? If you are against this censorship, then why did you not speak up at the time it was being debated and reviewed in the Ontario legislature?"

Just like Mr. Hudak who never responded to me, neither did Ms. Elliott. Even after giving her three chances.

So the Conservatives did nothing to stop Mr. McGuinty then, and are doing nothing now to fix the current McGuinty fiasco with his resignation and pro-rogueing of Parliament.

Maybe it's time for a new political party in Ontario to rise up. To do something. To fix the mess. To govern. Or something. Anything.

Education Minister needs to return to school

Dear Ms. Broten,

Can it possibly be true that you told the Canadian Press that:
"Taking away a woman's right to choose could arguably be considered one of the most misogynistic actions that one could take," and that "I don't think there is a conflict between choosing Catholic education for your children and supporting a woman's right to choose."?

Certainly the media reported this in error, and if it did, I apologize for this letter.

However, in the extremely unlikely case that you actually did utter these words, I must inform you with all due respect, that there is nothing misogynist whatsoever with what you euphemistically call "taking away woman's right to choose" when what you really mean, is that it is misogynist "to rip apart a pre-born human being from the safety of its mothers womb in order to kill it". Clearly this is not misogyny. Some call it murder.

You also appear to be very sadly misguided if you can equate ripping apart said pre-born human being, as not being in conflict with the Catholic faith. If you actually believe this, you are sorely uneducated for an education minister regarding the Catholic faith. I strongly suggest you brush up on your Catholic teachings forthwith before you put your other foot into your mouth.

Assuming these allegations are true, I would call on Mr. McGuinty to ask for your resignation immediately, and if they are untrue, I respectfully give you my sincerest apology.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Blue skying about a pro-life leader in Canada

LifeNews has reported that Mitt Romney said “As President I will Protect the Sanctity of Human Life".
"Mitt Romney made the pledge Thursday night during his GOP presidential nomination acceptance speech that pro-life Americans wanted to hear. Romney not only promised he would be a pro-life president but said he would affirm the freedom of religion that has been under attack by the Obama pro-abortion HHS mandate.

“As president, I will protect the sanctity of life. I will honor the institution of marriage. And I will guarantee America’s first liberty: the freedom of religion,” he said."

Can you imagine a Canadian politician, standing on a podium, in front of an election, speaking to millions of people, boldly saying, that he or she "will protect the sanctity of life"?

Can you imagine any of our political leaders doing that? Can you imagine Stephen Harper saying that? How about Dalton Mcguinty? What about Bob Rae or Tim Hudak? Nope, I can't either.

What about the rest of Canada, do they have a party leader who would stand up and tell us that they will "protect the sanctity of life"? I don't know, if there is one, I'd sure like to know who they are.

Maybe the next leader of the Federal Conservatives will stand up and say that. Or who knows, maybe even the next leader of the Liberals will stand up and say that. Don't laugh.

If Mr. Harper, who many used to think was pro-life, can turn his back on the pre-born amongst us, then surely a Liberal who nobody would ever expect to be pro-life, could surprise us all and say he or she would support the sanctity of life. It could happen.

And then something even weirder could happen. Social Conservatives might finally have someone they can vote for. And it won't be a Conservative.

Imagine that.

Ontario's stealth attack on FOI: the series

(Last updated December 23, 2012)

Below is all published information to date on the Ontario Government’s stealth attack on free and democratic access to information in this province. As we already know, all abortion information is now hidden from the public in Ontario. This is the only "medical procedure" affected by this change to FIPPA, which now excludes abortion services. The change itself was done in secret with no debate and nobody in the province was aware that it was happening until it was too late.

I will update this information on a regular basis. Please let me know if I've missed anything.

Dear Mr. Hudak, remember me? - December 14, 2012

Thank you Mr. Klees  (Video of Andrea Mrozek and Faye Sonier and MPP Frank Klees) - November 15, 2012
Time for a change in Ontario politics - October 18, 2012

Suppression of Abortion Data in Ontario (video below)
EFC Legal Counsel Faye Sonier explains how abortion data is being withheld from the Ontario public. For more information on abortion data suppression in Ontario, British Columbia and problems with data reporting across Canada, download a copy of our report 'Black Holes: Canada's Missing Abortion Data' at www.theEFC.ca/blackholes



How the Ontario Conservatives failed us - August 26, 2012

EFC blasts government suppression of reliable abortion data  by The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada - August 21, 2012

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has released a report on the suppression of Canadian Abortion Stats - Black Holes: Canada’s Missing Abortion Data - August 21, 2012

The Interim reports on EFC's report: Canada’s missing abortion statistics - August 21, 2012

Where are you Toronto Star and Globe and Mail cat got your tongue? (Includes link to Claire Hoy's article in the Caledon Citizen August 16, 2012) - August 17, 2012

Mr. McGuinty's hidden abortion agenda (includes links to the National Post letters to the editor) - August 13, 2012

How Ontario is hiding abortion statistics (includes links to Kelly McParland and National Post lead editorial and NP letters to the editor) - August 11, 2012

Hypocrisy behind Bill 122 by Lauren Klammer, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada - August 8, 2012

Access to abortion information denied in Ontario - June 16, 2012

Top secret abortion figures (Includes link to Barbara Kay's article in the National Post) - June 5, 2012

Mr. McGuinty...you have some explaining to do - May 25, 2012

Mr. Hudak where were you? (Includes link to Margaret Somerville's article in the Calgary Herald) - May 22, 2012

Brian Lilley talks out - May 11, 2012

Nick Vandergragt talks out  - May 11, 2012

Freedom of Information in Ontario aborted - May 9, 2012

Mr. McGuinty's hidden abortion agenda

There are more letters today in the National Post on what the Ontario Government is doing with its secret abortion agenda: Ontario hiding abortion stats makes the issue even more sensitive.

You know, by the Ontario government deciding to hide abortion statistics, they may have inadvertently admitted there must be something wrong with abortion. Otherwise, why would they hide those statistics?

Is the Ontario government ashamed of its role in forcing Ontario taxpayers to pay $70,545,600 dollars (in 2010) for the 44,091 babies killed each year in the province?

And why is it that it is only abortion information that is being hidden? Is it because maybe abortion is not really just like any other medical procedure after all?

And does the Ontario public actually support using public funds to pay for future, very large, now unknown, number of elective procedures, that will now be done completely in secret?

In fact, one does not even need to be pro-life to support the view that they want to know what is being spent on abortion services in Ontario. All they need to be, is just pro-fiscally-responsible.

How Ontario is hiding abortion statistics

National Post is now covering how Ontario is hiding its abortion statistics.

This was in Friday's paper: Ontario cuts off access to abortion data

Here is my (unedited) response to this article in a letter to the editor published today:

"As reported today in the National Post, access to abortion related information in Ontario has been killed. As the article stated, I found this out when my own access to information to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long term care was denied.

At that time, I wrote to both Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Hudak. I asked them why abortion services were the only "medical procedure" excluded from FIPPA, and why the exclusion clause was never debated or even mentioned in the Ontario Legislative Assembly. Because Mr. Hudak is leader of the opposition party, I also asked him why he didn't even bother to vote against the third reading of this bill, something one would expect the leader of the opposition to do, precisely because such a clause would seriously thwart a citizen's right to participate in democracy (regardless of whether the citizen be pro-choice or pro-life).

Mr. McGuinty made no comment and instead deflected the questions to Mr. Harinder S. Takhar, Minister of Government Services, who replied with what I refer to as a non-answer answer:
"A limited number of amendments to FIPPA were introduced in connection with the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010. These amendments, which came into force on January 1, 2012, were developed to assist hospitals maintain quality of care and the safety of staff and patients.

As with all other laws in this province, the amendments to FIPPA were passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario following debate in the legislature of the bill that introduced the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 and after review by the legislature's Standing Committee on Social Policy."

Mr. Hudak never even bothered to reply to my questions."

If I may quote Pierre Trudeau: "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."

More coverage in the National Post today:
Kelly McParland: Ontario judges abortion statistics too sensitive to share

NP Lead editorial:
Why Ontario hides abortion statistics

More letters from Jakki Jeffs, and André Schutten:
Citizens ready for abortion truth

Access to abortion information denied in Ontario

(An edited version of this article appeared in the May/June 2012 issue of LifeCanada News)

You know, I wasn't born in a cabbage patch. So can someone please tell me what is going on in Ontario?

Recently the McGuinty government passed Bill 122, The Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

One of the stated purposes of this act was to create:
“higher accountability standards for hospitals, Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs) and broader public sector organizations.” and to "Expand Freedom of Information legislation to cover hospitals".

This means that hospitals and other institutions now fall under Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA,). On the face of it, this should mean more accountability and access to information, right? Wrong.

You see, not only was Bill 122 passed into law, but a new clause was added to FIPPA with this amendment; a clause that specifically excludes abortion:
“(5.7) This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

The result of these changes is to actually decrease accountability and decrease access to information, since abortion services are now excluded whereas before they were included.

For instance, before this change occurred, a citizen of Ontario could ask for and receive information on abortion statistics. I have done several of these Freedom of Information requests.* In fact it was my latest FOI, which was refused, that alerted me to the change.

This will mean we will have no information about health complications for women and no information on gestational age. How will this be in the best interests of women's health? It seems the only ones who stand to benefit are those involved in the abortion industry, since now they can conduct their business completely shielded from the public--no other publicly funded 'medical service' receives such 'special' treatment. Abortion advocates continually claim that abortion is just like any other 'medical procedure'. If that is true, why the need to hide it?

It appears that there was no debate in the Legislature about this abortion exclusion clause. Nothing at all. It looks like nobody, including MPPs, were even aware of the change. There is no mention anywhere in any of the Hansard transcripts about this exclusion clause for abortion services.

Is it even remotely possible that this change could have happened without anybody noticing?

One must remember the kind of controversy the topic of abortion always creates in this country. Yet nary a word anywhere in the media, nothing from the Opposition benches, no debate on this exclusion clause, no communication to the public, nothing. So what happened?

Well, there are three possible answers, all of them disturbing.

First, either this was an honest mistake, and this clause was included in error. Since the result has been to ban all access to abortion information, resulting in the stated objective not being achieved (increased accountability), so a mistake, although unbelievable, is possible.

Second, maybe this was not a mistake, and it was an intentional tactic by Mr. McGuinty to secretively exclude abortion services from public scrutiny. Maybe he just slipped in the clause and nobody noticed. If this is what happened, where was the opposition when this was going on?

Mr. Hudak didn’t even vote on third reading of the bill. Where was he, and what were his members doing while this stealth maneuver was secretly going on? Were they all asleep in the cabbage patch?

Third, and this is the most troubling, is that Mr. Hudak whipped his MPs into being silent. Remember the provincial election when Mr. Hudak backtracked on his pro-life viewpoint?

"I may have signed a petition from my riding in that respect, but listen, let me be clear: we are not reopening this debate," said Hudak. "Just like the federal Parliament, we would not be reopening that issue."

So did Mr. Hudak tell his caucus to keep quiet--and they actually listened? Did he pull a Mr. Harper?

Regardless of the reason, whether it was intentional or a mistake, the solution is clear. The clause should be removed and the Act changed back. Mr. McGuinty should resign, and Mr. Hudak should resign as well.

It doesn't matter if you are pro-life or if you are pro-choice. All of Canada should shudder at this complete subversive use of the democratic process, no matter how it occurred. If this can happen in Canada’s largest province, it can happen in any other, or every other province in Canada.

This has already happened in BC, but the exemption for abortion is not as comprehensive as for Ontario. Which province will be next? In fact, has it already happened in other provinces? Would anybody even know?

* (e.g. Through FOI, I learned there were 77 selective fetal reduction abortions committed in 2010, and 2108 abortions for babies 14 weeks gestation and greater, and that there were a total of 44,091 tax-payer funded abortions in Ontario in 2010...53% more than CIHI reported)

Top secret abortion figures

Barbara Kay: McGuinty Liberals put ‘top secret’ label on abortion figures

Barbara Kay says it like it is. And she gives us a pretty good final analysis on what happened recently in Ontario regarding Freedom of Information, or lack thereof:

"It seems very clear that the Ontario government has become concerned that pro-life forces have found renewed political strength. What used to be a “settled” question is no longer settled. Many Canadians, for example, are disturbed over the issue of sex selection via abortion of female fetuses. The phenomenon is causing discomfort amongst rigid multiculturalists, some of whom occupy positions of power.

The abortion numbers we already know – over 100,000 a year in Canada, and 44,000 billed-for abortion in Ontario alone in 2010 (we won’t be able to know how many in 2011) – are making it clear that remaining the only country in the free world with no abortion regulations is not possible indefinitely.

What is needed is more public discussion on the issue, not a cowardly clampdown on information that will help guide us in that discussion. Behind Ontario’s Bill 122 is a totalitarian impulse. This undemocratic Act should not stand."

Undemocratic indeed.