Really boring videos - prelude to Ontario election

Do you want to be bored silly? If yes then watch this video. Kathleen Wynne and company recently discovered youtube. Now she is posting really boring videos on youtube.



Somehow I ended up on a mailing list to tell me that Kathleen is live broadcasting these really boring videos.

Today's installment is about light rail in London.

The first 23 minutes of the video consists of a sign, a microphone and some trees. Blowing in the wind. 23 minutes of this. Like I said. Really boring. I am not kidding.

I wonder if there were any actual people at the announcement other than politicians?

Of course we aren't idiots in Ontario. We all know the point of these really bring videos: the Ontario election is next year. Oh, and the best part? You paid for this really boring video. Along with all those Liberal commercials the Ontario government is airing on the radio. Also paid for by your tax dollars.

Liberal strategy: Announce spending of tax dollars. Tell taxpayer how great we are. Force taxpayer to pay for us to tell them how great we are. Really boring. But effective. Brilliant really.

Hiding abortion information was done for political reasons

The Ontario government argued (at length) that they had safety and security concerns regarding my requests for abortion data.

If safety and security was a concern, then why didn't they ever tell me that way before our court date? Because they couldn't defend their specious argument.

Back when I was originally denied my FOI request, I sent multiple letters to Deb Matthews and Kathleen Wynne, asking them to give me a reason why they had enacted this law. After repeatedly sending follow emails to both of them; after repeated phone calls to their offices; after meeting with m MPP Madeleine Meilleur who told me to contact the Minister of Health Deb Matthews--I received no answers.

(Wynne always referred me back to Deb Matthews refusing to be accountable herself.)

Meilleur did tell me when I met her that the change was enacted for "privacy" reasons. Which makes no sense because I never asked for, nor did I ever get, any private information.

Minister Deb Matthews did tell me though that "These amendments were debated and passed in the Legislature." Which is untrue. The abortion exclusion clause was never debated in the legislature, nor in committee hearings. Never debated at all. And notice Matthews never mention the so-called safety and security argument in her letter to me. Why not? Because the government hadn't dreamt up that argument yet at that point.

Fast forward to my bringing a charter challenge against the government, and all of a sudden safety and security is the main basis for their defense of their change to FIPPA. You know I wasn't born on a turnip truck.

In any case, do they really expect us to believe that safety and security could possibly be an issue when I never asked for any personal information of anyone, but was only asking for three aggregate numbers:

• Total of Abortions done in hospitals
• Total of Abortions done in clinics
• Total of Abortions done in physician's offices

I never asked for hospital names. I never asked for patient names. I never asked or clinic names. I never asked for the location of any of these abortion places. So there was no privacy concerns. There was no safety concerns. There was no security concerns.

When open and transparent government isn't

This is the best line I've read since I started my quest to get abortion statistics from the secretive Ontario government, who subsequently decided to hide that information.

“Our goal is to build Ontario up. That starts with leading an open and transparent government that is accountable to the people it serves. By making this legislation a priority, our government is moving forward with our commitment to lead the most open and transparent government in Canada.”

And it gets better. Who headed up this so-called "open and transparent" government initiative until just recently? Why none other than Deb-has-all-the answers-Matthews. Yes the very Deb Matthews who continually refused to answer my many questions to her about why she decided to hide abortion information in the first place. One and the same. I am not kidding.

Fixed toes would not be hidden under FIPPA

So this is what I don't understand. Why does Ontario health insurance pay to kill an unborn baby, but won't pay for a medically necessary operation on my toe? It cost me $900 to have an ingrown toenail surgically fixed. Luckily I have private insurance that will help with part of the cost.

Now we're not talking about cosmetic surgery here. And yes is was elective if you consider I could continue not having my toe fixed and put up with the pain every time I put on my shoe like I have for the past year. Sure you could call that elective surgery. If you must.

But if I were to have an abortion, well that would be fully funded. I could have one any time I want. And I could have as many abortions as I want too. None of them (or nearly none of them), medically necessary, all paid for courtesy of OHIP. Or should I say, courtesy the Ontario taxpayer.

And you know what else bugs me? If OHIP did cover the cost to fix my toe, well then, I would be able to find out how many Ontario toes are fixed each year, and how much those toes cost the taxpayer. I would simply do a freedom of information request. But I can't get the same information about abortions.

How's that for open, transparent and accountable government?

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.

Freedom of information case

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

Paying for abortions - why?

Why must Ontarians pay for their own eye exam, when all of us have to pay for someone else's abortion? Can someone please explain this to me?

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.

Freedom of Information case moves forward

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

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

More information here.

Contact information here.

Ontario politicians treat voters like idiots

Remember this letter where a citizen asked their MPP what they would do regarding the killing of access to information rights in Ontario?

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

They received a reply which said:

"Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the release of abortion statistics in Ontario. As you know, a limited number of amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act came into force in January 2013. These amendments were developed to assist hospitals maintain quality of care and protect the safety of both staff and patients, and they were reviewed by the Standing Committee on Social Policy and debated and passed in the Legislature.   

The Ontario Liberals are committed to an open and transparent government, and our progress on this front has allowed Ontario's residents access to an ever-growing amount of data. To date we have made 212 data sets available to the general public, and we continue to add more. You can browse through what's available here: https://www.ontario.ca/government/open-data-ontario."

To which the letter writer responded:

"...just a couple of notes regarding your response. 

Perhaps your staffer didn't read my email where I said I hate being treated like an idiot. 

Your answer treats me like an idiot. Hmmmm, most idiots would notice that you didn't answer my question. When I ask you "what time is it?" and you respond "the sky is blue", you didn't answer my question. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't notice. See [first paragraph].   

Signed,
Not Getting MY vote"

It's pretty sad how politicians disrespect and demean the very people who put them into power in the first place. Pathetic really.

I'm actually embarrassed for them. Oh wait, it passed.

The Ontario Liberals and Conservatives hidden agenda

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

This is what it says:

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

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

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

Hello Madeleine, 

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

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

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

Hello Martin,

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

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

Treating Ontario voters like idiots

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Action item for Ontario election

Since we are having an election, will you do me a favour? Will you ask your provincial candidate about the abortion exclusion clause?

Anyone who follows this blog, knows that the Liberals have been hiding Ontario's abortion statistics since 2012.

Here's a reminder, in case you forgot:

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act See section 65.(5.7) “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” 

Bill 122: Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010 See Part VIII, section 24 (17) which amends FIPPA by adding subsection (5.7) to section 65. 

This amendment to FIPPA was not debated in the Ontario legislature, was not considered at committee hearings, and was passed into law without any input whatsoever from the public, and without any public comments by a single member of the Ontario legislature. The amendment goes against the spirit of Bill 122, which was supposed to increase accountability, not reduce it.

You will also know that Kathleen Wynne and her Health Minister Deb Matthews have both refused to give me the reasons why they are hiding abortion statistics. So we have to assume it's for ideological reasons.

Kathleen Wynne even had the audacity to launch an Open and Transparent Government initiative, at the same time she was refusing to answer my questions. How's that for irony?

My own MPP Madeleine Meilleur also can't tell me the reasons for the exclusion clause, and hasn't helped me get any answers either. She told me that Minister Deb Matthews has all the answer to my questions. Yet Ms. Matthews has been spectacularly useless in giving me any answers. Ms. Meilleur also thinks that the hospitals and doctors wanted the abortion exclusion clause, when there's absolutely no evidence of this at the public hearings held,

There is no question that the Liberals have got to go.

Yet, I've also tried unsuccessfully to get Conservative leader Tim Hudak to respond to my questions about why his opposition party did nothing to stop this from happening. He, and every member of his caucus, have also stayed mute on the subject. Even after I have emailed them numerous times.

So...I am hoping that every democracy loving person in Ontario will take a minute and ask the candidates in their riding a couple of questions. Because as I've noted before, this is not a pro-life vs pro-choice issue.

I'd like you to ask them if they would work to restore our access to information rights in Ontario? If they will work to ensure, that all medical services including abortion, will be open to public scrutiny?

Because if a government in power can--for purely ideological reasons--hide information on this medical service that we know costs us at least $30-50 million a year, what other services could a government hide in the future?

Something to think about.

I can guarantee you that the candidates won't be making this an election issue. It's up to us to make it one.

CIHI publishes 2012 abortion stats and Quebec abortion stats for 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deb Matthews confirms closed opaque government

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

From her response, I conclude that Deb Matthews

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

Here are my questions to her again:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is her response to me:

Dear Ms. Maloney:

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Deb Matthews
Minister

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

Ministerial horse manure is standard output for politicians

I got a kick out of Christie Blatchford's comments in Saturday's Post.

Blatchford was lamenting how she couldn't get a straight answer from the Minister of Canadian Forces for an article she was writing.

"She [public affairs officer in DND] did not respond to a single one of my questions...

...I’m happy to use the ‘response’ you sent, but it is hardly responsive to the questions I asked. And frankly, I expected better.”...Ms. Crouse replied with a “Sorry, that’s all we’ve got for you.”...

It was not responsive to my questions. It said sweet bugger all. It was ministerial horse manure and it took seven days to get it."

This is just normal procedure for politicians: they never answer questions. Just look at my own correspondence with Queen Kathleen and Princess Deb-has-all-the-answers-Matthews, neither of whom are capable of answering a simple question. See here, here and here.

Pretending to be open, transparent and accountable, is way more fun than actually being open, transparent and accountable.

Yep. Sounds just like Queen Kathleen and Princess Deb-has-all-the-answers-Matthews.

Kathleen Wynne is the only one with a last name

I called Kathleen's office again. (I called earlier this week and spoke with Ian and Vera.)

This time I spoke with Cheryl and Carlitta.

Nobody there has last names it seems, and they won't give them to you if you ask. What are they afraid of?

In any event, I got lectured on how, even though Kathleen's Open and Transparent Government initiative is her initiative, well each piece of data (like abortion data) belongs to a particular Ministry and not the Premier.

She referred me to the Minister's office, where of course, I have been in touch with many times already and still waiting for answers.

I told Carlitta that although I understand what she's trying to say, I still maintain it is the Premier's responsibility to answer my very simple question, since is is Kathleen's initiative. Carlitta disagreed.

You see, this is what open, transparent and accountable government actually looks like in Ontario: not open, transparent and accountable.

That's what the gas plants and subsequent email deletion campaign looks like too. The big cheese simply doesn't take any responsibility and gets off the hook, downloading the fallout to all the poor schmucks underneath them.

Kathleen, and Dalton before her, seem to be experts at not being accountable. That's why they have last names.

When youtube collides with reality

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

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

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

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

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

And this:

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

Lastly:

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

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

Ontario Government is still pretending

Dear Ms. Wynne (and to Mr. Milloy Minister of Government Services),

I am still waiting to hear from you regarding my question from October 2013.

That's rather interesting, especially since I notice that in your press release from today that you will be:

"Setting a high standard for accountability and transparency is part of the government's plan to make it more open and accountable to the people of Ontario."

Since I am one of those people residing in Ontario to whom your government is supposedly open and accountable to, frankly, I am having a lot of difficulty in comprehending how this can in fact be true. Especially since I have now waited almost five months for an answer from you regarding a very simple question indeed.

I look forward to hearing back from you at your earliest possible convenience.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Secret abortion information = open transparent government

Kathleen' Wynne's understanding of open and transparent government:

"We must also 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.
...
Our Open Government initiative will help create the transparent, accessible government that the people of Ontario deserve. Over the months and years to come, we’ll be bringing forward additional initiatives that will improve transparency, accountability, and connectivity." 

Feb 8, 2014 Part 12

Feb 5, 2014 Part 11

Jan 30, 2014 Part 10

Jan 3, 2014 Part 9

Dec 19, 2013 Part 8

Dec 12, 2013 Part 7

October 27, 2013 Part  6
October 21, 2013 Part 5
October 17, 2013 Part 4

Oct 17, 2013 Part 3

Sept 29, 2013 Part 2 

Sept 5, 2013 Part 1