Ontario Health hides abortion information - Again

The Ontario government is again hiding abortion information from a freedom of information request I did. The last time they did this, we were forced to go to court. We won that case. 

Pretty sad that one must go to all that time and expense of a court case, just to practice your freedom of expression rights that you theoretically have, and that the army of government highly paid lawyers says nope, we don't want to let you have your rights. If you want them, then go to court.

Below is a copy of the letter I received that refused my request, and my request is also detailed in that refusal letter. 

And remember. If we hadn't fought my last case, Ontario would still not be getting accurate abortion numbers based on doctor's billing codes. They would still be hidden. Here is Justice Marc R. Labrosse's reasons for his decision last time. The Information Commissioner intervened in our case. It took no position on the outcome of our Application. Justice Labrosse was very clear in his decision, and it is a very enlightening read.

I am appealing their decision.

Here is that refusal letter.

Our File – Notre référence A-2024-00026 / FT

Dear Patricia Maloney:

I am replying to your access request made under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the Act) for the following information:

1) Please provide information on how abortion clinics in Ontario are inspected to ensure that they follow all regulations and compliance for health and safety requirements. Include how often inspections are performed.

2) Please provide information on the results of all compliance inspections for all abortion clinics in Ontario for the past five years.

Clarification as of March 26, 2024:

1)       The requester is willing to limit the request to the last two years (calendar or fiscal).

2)       The requester is seeking only Ottawa and Toronto clinics.

Time frame: The last 2 fiscal or calendar years

A comprehensive search was conducted by the Health Programs and Delivery Division and 3 records (285 pages) were located in response to your request. Based on the fact that the records fall under the exclusionary provision, Section 65(13)(a), of the Act, access is denied in full. Angie Wong, Acting Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Programs and Delivery Division, is responsible for this decision.

A copy of the section of the Act is attached to this letter and it provides the Health Programs and Delivery Division the right to deny access to records.

You may request a review of this decision by the Information and Privacy Commissioner 2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400, Toronto ON  M4W 1A8. Please note that you have 30 days from the date of this letter to request a review.  In the event that you do seek a review, please provide the Commissioner’s Office with:

The request file number:  A-2024-00026 / FT

A copy of this decision letter.

A copy of your original request.

A cheque or money order in the amount of $25.00 payable to the Minister of Finance.

Sincerely,

Enclosure

Consultant  |  Access, Privacy & Corporate Information / Corporate Services Division

Ministry of Health |  Ontario Public Service

Taking pride in strengthening Ontario, its places and its people

The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act

Exemptions

Application of Act

Non-application of Act, provision of abortion services

65(13) This Act does not apply to information relating to the provision of abortion services if,

(a) the information identifies an individual or facility, or it is reasonably foreseeable in the circumstances that it could be utilized, either alone or with other information, to identify an individual or facility

Cheap to kill people in British Columbia

The document I received through an FOI for MAID deaths in BC. 

Deaths from 2017 to 2021 is 6,510 according to Canada's official MAID deaths and from the document I received. Official numbers only report until 2021. What I received from BC, also reports dollars spent up until April 30, 2023 on MAID. Therefore I assume that is one extra year of dollars spent. Total dollars spent is $8,665,735.

If we assume at least another 2 to 3 thousand additional killings for 2022 (since the numbers increase every year), that would be at least a total of 8,510 deaths at a cost of $8,665,735. Or about $1000/death. That sounds a whole lot cheaper than keeping sick/disabled/poverty stricken people alive.

Canada's independent media and how to do FOIs and ATIPs

This is an excellent resource with links to pretty much all of Canada's independent media groups. Much better to check them out instead of going to the usual pinko CBC/Global News/CTV/Toronto Star bunch, all of which get government funding and really really really don't like conservatives/pro-life people.

Non-legacy news outlets in Canada

And one of the links I got from the site was this one:

It gives information on doing Freedom of Information requests (provincial), and Access to Information requests (federal). I already know how to do these, and do a lot of them, but this page details all the links you need in one place, a very handy resource.

4 reasons Ontario does not need an abortion bubble zone

I have repeatedly said that there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. This is based on the following facts. (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

First, from abortion doctor Wendy Norman from her 2012 study of Canadian abortion clinics. These are the different texts she wrote in this study pertaining to harassment at abortion places, where she explicitly says that there is little to no pro-life harassment at abortion facilities.

Page e209

"We identified 94 Canadian facilities providing abortion in 2012, with 48.9% in Quebec. The response rate was 83.0% (78 of 94). Facilities in every jurisdiction with services responded. In Quebec and British Columbia abortion services are nearly equally present in large urban centres and rural locations throughout the provinces; in other Canadian provinces services are chiefly located in large urban areas. No abortion services were identified in Prince Edward Island. Respondents reported provision of 75 650 abortions in 2012 (including 4.0% by medical abortion). Canadian facilities reported minimal or no harassment, in stark contrast to American facilities that responded to the same survey."

Page e209

"More than half of all abortion providers in Canada are family physicians or general practitioners. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities."

Page e212

"Facilities reported very little harassment (Table 4). No Canadian facility reported a resignation of an abortion provider–physician or any staff member owing to harassment. Only a single facility reported any resignation of an allied health professional staff member, and in this case the facility specified that the one resignation was not owing to violence, fear, or threats. Similarly, two-thirds of reporting facilities (49 of 74, 66.2%) indicated no episodes of harassment or violence in 2012, with a further 28.4% (21 of 74) reporting solely picketing without interference. Among 7 facilities reporting “other” episodes of harassment, half specified only receipt of harassing e-mail."

Page e215

"Canadian abortion facilities reported rare harassment. In contrast, among American abortion facilities sampled concurrently 83% reported substantial episodes of harassment, and 10% reported staff resignations owing to harassment."

Page e216

"Conclusion. Equitable access to abortion service varies by region across Canada. Medical abortion is rare, as is harassment of facilities. Provincial government leadership in BC and Quebec has demonstrated effective strategies to address inequity. Regulatory advances that could improve abortion service access include improved access to mifepristone for medical abortion; provincial leadership supporting abortion services through policy and legislation; implementation of routine training in surgical and especially medical abortion within family medicine residency programs; and regulations to broaden the scope of practice for nurses, midwives, and other allied health professionals to include abortion provision. Health policy and service improvements have the potential to address current abortion access inequity in Canada."

Second, an FOI I did to the Ottawa Police, identified no arrests and no charges in a period from 2010 to June 1, 2017. Then with a subsequent conversation with the Ottawa Police, this was confirmed for me.

"Yesterday I spoke with constable Chuck Benoit at the Ottawa Police Service. There were two "level 1" assaults at the facility in three and a half years. One on October 25, 2016 and one on May 28, 2017. All the other incidents were run of the mill police work.

I was told that neither of these assaults resulted in injuries, and no one was charged with anything."

Third, besides Ottawa's lack of any problematic police reports, the fact that there were no other police reports in the entire province of Ontario, to support a bubble zone law. The Attorney general of Ontario quite unbelievably has no police reports from anywhere in Ontario to support this unconstitutional law against our freedom of expression rights.

"One of my other complaints was the glaring omission of any police reports to support the need for a bubble zone in the first place. You know, like actual evidence for the need for a bubble zone? When I asked the information commissioner about this, I was told:

"with respect to the police reports, I had followed up earlier with the ministry [attorney general] and they advised there were no police reports."

Finally, the Ontario government has never provided an actual reason for the need of a bubble zone.

Conclusion, there is no need for an abortion bubble zone in Ontario. Not now. Not ever. This legislation is purely about pro-abortion ideology that permeates the powers that be.

Canadian medical abortion numbers

Below find my chart of abortion totals for CIHI for 2018. I have added a 6th column to identify if a province publishes medical abortions. These medical abortion numbers are for early medical abortions and do not include the morning after pill.

Here is a link to a page that will allow you to access the individual provinces and their numbers. These numbers are all from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests I made to the individual provinces and territories.

I understand that medical abortions are not published in Canada anywhere else. If I am wrong about that please let me know.

Also note that CIHI does not report medical abortions.

PEI abortion rates double in two years

CIHI notes in their published stats that:

"Induced abortions are not performed in clinics in Prince Edward Island."

Yet you can see from the chart below that Health PEI, not only reports abortions in PEI clinics, but that they report more abortions in clinics than in hospitals. According to the FOI I received from Health PEI, the clinic in question is the Women's Wellness Program & Sexual Health Services. It seems that Health PEI must be tracking these clinic abortions as hospital abortions. But there are also a few abortions being reported in a hospital setting.

Also medical abortions have been taking place since 2015 in PEI, albeit a very small number of them.

And as you can see, PEI Health's abortion numbers are quite different from CIHI's numbers.

The most troubling part of these numbers is that were more than twice as many abortions performed in 2019 (143) as were done in 2017 (67). Abortion rates (as reported by PEI Health) are clearly increasing.

Canadian abortion statistics 2015-2019

I continue to receive abortion statistics from my access to information requests from the provinces and territories of Canada.

I am only missing Northwest Territories. I will post NWT once I receive the information.

Below are all of my most recent posts on abortion statistics in Canada from this year.

PEI
Yukon
Nunavut
New Brunswick (Part 1)

Gaining insight into New Brunswick's abortion statistics (Part 2)

Newfoundland and Labrador
Nova Scotia
Saskatchewan
Manitoba
British Columbia
Canadian abortion statistics: who does, and who does not, report medical abortions
Canada abortion rates by province
The never ending story of abortion statistics in Canada
Alberta abortion codes
UPDATE: Alberta abortion statistics for 2015/2016 to 2018/2019
UPDATE The facts about abortions statistics in Canada
2018 abortion numbers - are they going up or down?
Late term live-birth abortions in Canada - the Series

Nunavut doesn't track abortion statistics based on doctor's billing records

My FOI from Department of Health, Government of Nunavut yielded this:

"The doctors in Nunavut are paid a daily wage based on the area they work in. Doctors are paid a daily rate and they see as many patients as they are booked for-regardless of the service that is requested."

The never ending story of abortion statistics in Canada

Further to my post on Canada's abortion statistics, I have done a four year comparison between CIHI's and Ontario's abortion numbers. As you can see the spread between CIHI's and MOHLTC's numbers increase every year between (2014 and 2014/2015), to (2017 and 2017/2018). So while overall the numbers are decreasing, the spread is getting larger. In 2014 and 2014/2015, the difference was 8.4%. In 2017 and 2017/2018 the difference was 20.42%. 

Adding 20.42% (to CIHI's reported 85,195 in 2018 for all of Canada) would mean a total of at least 102,592 abortions for all of Canada. 

See above link for my notes from CIHI and MOHLTC.

Alberta abortion codes

Further to this FOI I did for Alberta, I received this from Alberta Health Services regarding the claim codes that are used for abortions.

'86.41',,'87.0 ','87.1','87.21','87.29A','87.29B'

More information on the code meaning can be found in this link

86.4 Other removal of embryo
86.41 Hysterotomy to terminate pregnancy

87.0 Intra-amniotic injection for termination of pregnancy
87.0 A Termination of pregnancy between 13 and 20 weeks for medical or genetic reasons using potent prostaglandins by any route
NOTE: 1. Includes the insertion of a laminaria tent if required.
2. A D & C required within 14 days should be claimed under 81.09.

87.2 Other termination of pregnancy
87.29 Other termination of pregnancy NEC
87.29A Suction curettage or dilation and curettage for termination of pregnancy
NOTE: May only be claimed when performed in an active treatment hospital or by a physician approved to perform the procedure by the CPSA when performed in an accredited non-hospital surgical facility.

87.29B Termination of pregnancy, dilatation and evacuation (D&E) termination where imaging report confirms fetus is 12 weeks size or greater
NOTE: 1. May be claimed for termination of viable or non-viable pregnancy.
2. May only be claimed when performed in an active treatment hospital or by a physician approved to perform the procedure by the CPSA when performed in an accredited non-hospital surgical
facility.

UPDATE: Alberta abortion statistics for 2015/2016 to 2018/2019

UPDATE March 4, 2020 Claim codes for Alberta.

UPDATE March 3, 2020
My question to AHS regarding their statistics, and their response: 
Q. Can you explain why your stats are consistently lower than those stats reported by CIHI?
A. There are two reasons
1.       Difference in Data source (We use Claims and CIHI uses inpatient/outpatient data).
2.       Difference in methodology (We restrict any claims with 60 days as one abortion) but am not sure about CIHI (You can confirm with them).

I received abortion statistics from Alberta Health Services (AHS) through a freedom of information request. I then compared these numbers to CIHI's numbers. As you can see, AHS's numbers are less than CIHI's. This was a surprise since both Quebec and Ontario's numbers are higher than CIHI's.

But notice the footnotes.

From CIHI data:

"patients with coverage under Quebec’s health insurance plan receiving care in Alberta are reported by Alberta. However, patients with coverage under Alberta’s health insurance plan receiving care in Quebec are not reported (by either Quebec or Alberta)."

So abortions covered by AHS, but done in Quebec, aren't reported anywhere.

From Alberta data:

"Mifegymiso prescriptions were introduced in July 2017 which affected abortions numbers for the last two fiscal years."

So abortions covered by AHS do not include medical abortions, but only surgical abortions. This means that 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 numbers would be higher than reported--if only we knew how many medical abortions were occurring in Alberta.

Once again we have confusion over abortion statistics.

UPDATE The facts about abortions statistics in Canada

(UPDATE March 22, 2010. Quebec Health (RAMQ) has confirmed that their abortion numbers do not include medical abortions.)

The media has it wrong: New data suggests Canadian clinics and hospitals performing fewer abortions. So does Joyce Arthur.

Why? Because what people always report are CIHI's numbers. And CIHI is missing a lot of data based on freedom of information requests I've done.

It is a well known fact CIHI under reports abortion numbers because they do not collect data based on fee for service records (i.e. OHIP billings in Ontario).

"CIHI captures administrative, clinical and demographic data on induced abortions performed in Canadian hospitals. Data is supplied by provincial and territorial ministries of health, hospitals and independent abortion clinics in Canada. Clinic data is submitted voluntarily to CIHI. Counts in the following tables include induced abortions performed in a hospital or clinic setting in Canada. Due to variations in use of fee-for-service (FFS) payments for induced abortions across the country, these figures are not based on pan-Canadian FFS data."

What we do know about CIHI's data:

• abortions performed in physician's office are not reported (only hospitals and clinics are reported). (UPDATE March 2, 2020 Correction: CIHI apparently does a calculation to increase their accuracy  *** However they are still under reporting see below)
• clinic abortion data is under reported because of its voluntary nature
• medical abortions (the abortion pill RU-486) are not reported (for the most part they are prescribed through physician offices)
• CIHI hospital abortion data is accurate
• the only accurate data available for all abortions comes from FFS or doctor's billing records (OHIP in Ontario RAMQ in Quebec)

I have received data from Ontario billing records over the years. Recently I received Quebec billing records. Both of these sources are fairly accurate because they are based on FFS records.

Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2018 CIHI reported 29,513 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 13,340 unreported abortions.

(UPDATE March 2, 2020): in 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 and in 2017 CIHI reported 35,587. In the calculation above I used CIHI's 2018 numbers instead of 2017 numbers. The confusion comes from the fact that CIHI reports a calendar year, and MOHLTC reports a fiscal year of April 1, 2017- March 31, 2018. So it makes more sense to compare MOHLTC numbers to CIHI's calendar year. Therefore Ontario: In 2017/2018 MOHLTC reported 42,853 abortions compared to 2017 CIHI who reported 35,587 abortions in Ontario. A difference of 7,266 unreported abortions. This means CIHI under reported Ontario's abortions by 20.42%. I will be doing more comparisons in a later post.)

Quebec: Recently I reported numbers for the first time from Quebec: 

In 2018 RAMQ reported 26,979 compared to 22,093 from CIHI = 4,886 unreported abortions

This means CIHI under reported Quebec's abortions by 22%.

Quebec and Ontario are the largest provinces in Canada. Therefore they perform the most abortions. So total numbers of abortions reported by CIHI are probably somewhere between 22% and 45% lower than the actual totals.

CIHI reported 85,195 in 2018 for all of Canada. Quebec and Ontario abortions make up 65% of that number. If we assume all provinces have similar under reported abortion numbers, it's fair to say that the percentages would be somewhere between 22% or 45% higher than CIHI reports.

This means the total number of abortions done in Canada in 2018 can reasonably be expected to be somewhere between 103,937 to 123,532. Not 85,195.

UPDATE March 2, 2020 from CIHI: "The report you shared (42,853) includes seven fee codes, however CIHI reports only using two fee codes. If you limit your comparison to the 2 surgical fee codes (S752 and S785), the total numbers presented in the MOH report are very close to CIHI’s reported numbers (32,795 vs 29,513 respectively). In addition, CIHI reported for calendar year 2018 while the other report appears to be based on fiscal year 2017/18 data."

To which I responded: "So why doesn't CIHI use all the fee codes used by Ontario, since those are abortions as well? There is a big 45% difference between CIHI's numbers and Ontario's numbers. Ontario reported 42,853 and CIHI only reported 29,513. I realize there is a difference in the two reporting periods, because MOHLTC reports using a fiscal year, CIHI uses a calendar year, but there is no way to get a completely equivalent time frame, so I must compare the two years in this manner."

*** This is included on CIHI's annual reports on abortion ***
The methodology to estimate induced abortion volumes for Ontario is consistent with the enhanced methodology that was introduced in the 2015 report. Total volumes were derived by using the total abortion volumes reported to the National Physician Database (NPDB) at CIHI and adding both hospital-based abortions for non-Ontario residents and hospital-based medical-method-only abortions for Ontario residents (as reported to the Discharge Abstract Database and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System). For Ontario, volumes reported in the column Number of induced abortions reported by clinics include services from non-hospital settings. Volumes for non-hospital settings (clinics/surgical facilities/physician offices) were estimated using the total abortion volumes as described above and subtracting hospital-based abortions. This methodology results in induced abortions occurring in physician offices and in clinics being included in non-hospital settings volumes. This estimation approach for non-hospital volumes was required because information on the location where the service is rendered (e.g., clinic, hospital, physician’s office) may not be included in the NPDB data.

Update March 3, 2020 from OMHLTC: 
"Health Services Branch has confirmed that medical abortions would be captured under A920A." This means that medical abortions are being captured under A920. But so are missed abortions. As well, there are other methods to deal with missed abortions which do not include RU486. What a dog's breakfast abortion statistics are.

UPDATE March 4, 2020, comparison of Ontario and CIHI's data for the past four years.

Quebec abortions at least 20% higher than reported by CIHI

I have good news and I have bad news.

The good news is that Quebec's abortion rates appear to be decreasing. The bad news is that what CIHI reports for Quebec abortions is under reported by at least 20%.

I did a freedom of information request of Quebec Health RAMQ. This is what I asked for:

1. The number of abortions done in a Canadian province, other than Quebec, reimbursed by RAMQ, as well as the total cost, for each of the last five years, broken down by hospital, by clinic, and by physician's office. 

2. The number abortions done in Quebec, reimbursed by RAMQ, as well as the total cost, for each of the last five years, broken down by hospital, by clinic, and by physician's office. 

3. The number abortions done in the United States, reimbursed by RAMQ, as well as the total cost, for each of the last five years.

Below are scans of what I received back. Sorry for the poor quality.

The first three scans are the numbers of abortions done in Quebec, and the last scan is of the abortions done in a province outside of Quebec.

Ignoring the 2019 stats (the year isn't finished yet) and the 2014 stats (doesn't seem to be online anymore at CIHI's site), I looked at 2015, 2016 and 2017 and compared them to CIHI's numbers.

Here they are (and for this calculation I ignored the out of province abortions so the actual abortions are even higher than this):

2015 RAMQ/CIHI 29,036/24,193 (difference of 4,843)
2016 RAMQ/CIHI 28,086/23,393 (difference of 4,693)
2017 RAMQ/CIHI 27,621/22,966 (difference of 4,655)

For the abortions done out of province, I noticed something interesting. For those done under "Services professionels" (380 of them), the average cost was about $308. For those done under "Services hospitaliers" the average cost was about $1,580. It seems probable that these are late-term abortions because of the much higher cost.

Regarding abortions done if the US, I was told:

"Furthermore, we wish to inform you that we have not reimbursed any abortion performed in the US." [sic]

Ottawa FOI Part 4 - the full FOI report for your viewing pleasure or displeasure as the case may be

For those of you who would like to look at the full 487 pages worth of my FOI to the city of Ottawa on the pro-life flag nonsense here is the link.

And if you wondered if your response from Mayor Jim Watson was a form letter or not. Rest assured that. It was.

Here are my three previous posts on the subject.

https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2018/02/ottawa-foi-part-2-joyce-arthur-compares.html
https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2018/02/ottawa-foi-part-2-how-jim-watson-and.html
https://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2018/01/ottawa-foi-part-1-not-raising-pro-life.html

Ottawa FOI Part 1 - Not raising the pro-life flag was a concern for city lawyer

I recently made a freedom of Information request to the city of Ottawa for all the internal emails at the city regarding the city's decision to lower the pro-life flag last year on May 11, the same day as the March for Life.

Below is an email Rick O'Connor sent to council after falling on his sword about the "error" that was made in raising the flag.

Members of Council,

A number of Members of Council have contacted me with respect to the Proclamation and flag raising for today's March for Life.

First, I want to apologize to Members of Council with respect to today's flag raising. While the City's Flag Protocol Procedures mirror the City's Proclamation Policy in many ways, a review of this matter has determined that the request for the flag raising was made by an individual. This does not meet the criteria and, when this was discovered, the flag was taken down under my authority. The Mayor has requested a review of the Flag Protocol Procedures and the City's Proclamation Policy, which will be reported back. 

With respect to proclamations, all proclamations issued by the City of Ottawa are in accordance with a Policy adopted in 2002. The provisions in this policy reflect the law in Ontario with respect to proclamations, which ensures that the City's practices are in line with Ontario's Human Rights Code. The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that, because proclamations issued by Mayors in Ontario are a service subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Code, the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria. For this reason, the City of Ottawa's Policy specifically indicates a Proclamation "should not be interpreted as an endorsement by either the Mayor or the City of Ottawa." 

Because the City of Ottawa chooses to issue proclamations, they are provided on request to groups where the request does not violate the Ontario Human Rights Code. Only proclamations that are contrary to the City of Ottawa's policies or bylaws, discriminatory, espousing hatred, violence or racism, illegal, not located within the boundaries of the City of Ottawa, politically or religiously motivated or intended for profit-making purposes may be refused. It should be noted that "politically or religiously motivated" means affiliated for or against specific political parties or candidates or religions. 

I am attaching below an email on this topic issued by my office in 2011 to Members of Council to assist them in responding to resident inquiries for your information. 

The process for issuing proclamations and approving flag raisings is overseen by the Office of Protocol to ensure that the City's policies are interpreted without a political lens and in keeping with the Ontario Human Rights Code. As the request from this anti-choice group met the test of both policies, the proclamation was issued, as it has been for many years. This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising. It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation.

Notice how the city is quite concerned with the Human Rights Code: 

"the refusal of a Mayor to issue a proclamation may constitute a contravention of the Human Rights Code if the decision of the Mayor was based on any reason that is protected in the Code or by case law related to the Code. Therefore, based on the requirements of human rights law, most municipalities in Ontario have chosen to either eliminate the use of proclamations altogether or issue them using broad criteria."

And also notice that the flag was raised based because of the same concern with the Human Rights Code.

This is the first year the request has been made for a flag raising. It was granted on the same basis as the proclamation.

You can also read the 2011 letter that O'Connor speaks about at the link above.

More on this later.

Abortion bubble zone FOI - "open government" is a farce Part II

Further to my last post on the ridiculous discriminatory anti-pro-life abortion bubble zone legislation, I received "answers" to my questions. See Ministry responses below (my points in black, government response in red).

First. You state:

• "The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative."

I am not requesting any personal information. If the records I am seeking, do contain personal information, the usual procedure is to redact this information. Therefore clearly releasing personal information to me is not an issue and my request satisfies the Open Government policy.

The Open Government initiative is intended for records that do not contain personal information, are not confidential, are not a risk to security (e.g., of vulnerable or targeted individuals) and do not contain sensitive/legal/contractual agreements. The records you are seeking may require a review in accordance with FIPPA and severances may be applied.

Second. The document you sent me states:

• "When is it fair and equitable to waive fees?...whether the requester worked constructively with the institution to narrow the scope of the request; whether the requester has advanced a compromise solution which would reduce costs;"

I have twice now agreed to reduce the scope of my request.

Please be advised that the initial parameters of the request were very broad and the fee was much higher. Upon narrowing the request and in the interest of good customer service, the Ministry significantly reduced the fee from $675 for 22.5 hours to $450 for 15 hours.

Third. The document you sent me states:

• "Generally, the requester must provide details regarding his/her financial situation, which may include information about income, assets and expenses." 

Obviously I have no intention of providing anyone with information "about my income, assets and expenses." This would be a breach of my privacy rights.

Further to the information provided about fee waivers, in order to assess whether there is a financial hardship the ministry has the right to request documentation in order to assess financial hardship.

Fourth. On numerous previous occasions I have obtained FOI information from the Ontario government. Fees have never been requested of me, except once. That one time I complained and that fee was waived. Therefore the Ontario government has clearly demonstrated a history of not charging me fees. Why should fees now be charged?

Every request is different and must be assessed on its own merits to determine whether fees are necessary. Waivers are granted when it is proven that there is a financial hardship (supporting documentation required) or a benefit to the health and safety of the public.

Fifth. You ask me how these records:

• "at issue will benefit public health and safety". 

This abortion bubble zone law's alleged reason for being, is to protect the health and safety of women who go to abortion facilities. Notice that the intention is to protect these women. I see no allowance in the legislation that would provide protection to pro-life people whose health and safety is frequently in danger from people who spit at us; who rip up our signs; who threaten us; who confront us with verbal obscenities; and who block us from our annual peaceful March for life all the while hiding their identity by covering their faces. Our health and safety is threatened frequently in these many ways but we have no protection against that. This is why I want to be able to understand why this legislation was enacted--why are we not also provided with health and safety protection? Why are we being discriminated against by our politicians and others and why is this discrimination allowed to continue?

Please explain how the dissemination of the records at issue will protect the health and safety of the public per the criteria below:

·         whether the subject matter of the record is a matter of public rather than private interest;

·         whether the subject matter of the record relates directly to a public health or safety issue;

·         whether the dissemination of the record would yield a public benefit by disclosing a public health or safety concern, or contributing meaningfully to the development of understanding of an important public health or safety issue; and

·         the probability that the requester will disseminate the contents of the record.

Abortion bubble zone FOI - "open government" is a farce

Below is an exchange that I had today with the Attorney General's office. The AG wants to charge me $450 to find out how their bubble zone legislation came to be. Legislation which discriminates against pro-life people. Legislation that is not grounded on any evidence. Legislation that all began with Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

It wasn't bad enough that the government has enacted this legislation. Now they want to charge me $450 to find out what went on behind the scenes. They don't want me to know what went on. So they put up a financial roadblock. Pathetic. Unprofessional. Discriminatory. Secrecy is still alive and well in the halls of the Ontario government.

Kathleen Wynne's so-called Open government initiative doesn't exist.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dear FOI office at the Attorney General's office,

I received your letter dated Nov 2 where you informed me that there will be a fee of at least $450 to get the information I requested:

• "All information provided to the Ministry of the Attorney General from external sources from January 1, 2017 to October 30, 2017 regarding the need for bubble zones or safe access zones." 

Your letter states that I may request a waiver of this fee due to financial hardship of if release of the record will benefit public health or safety. 

First. This fee will indeed cause me financial hardship.

I have already reduced the scope of my request twice (at your request) in order to reduce the amount of information I requested and to lessen the burden on your office.

As a senior on a fixed income; together with the fact that information in custody of the Ontario government actually belongs to the taxpayer (me and every other resident of Ontario); along with the fact that Kathleen Wynne has publicly stated;

• "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"; 

Second. Regarding health and safety. To date, we have seen absolutely no evidence of need for this abortion bubble zone. Yet the government has stated that this law is in effect because of harassment towards women who go for abortions. 

Ottawa police records show no charges or assaults being laid against anyone at the Morgentaler facility in a three and a half year period. Therefore my request is a direct attempt to see what evidence the government actually has concerning this reason for this law, based on the health and safety of these women.

I suggest that this fee be waived in its entirety. I am sure you will agree that citizen access to information--which is only held in custody by the government of the day, and not owned by the government of the day--should not only be accessible to those who have the financial means to obtain this data.

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

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney
__________________________________________________________________________________

Here is the response I received for my email above from the FOI office of the Attorney General:

Hi Patricia, thanks for your email below. Please note fees are charged in accordance with the legislation to ensure that the burden of processing requests is not passed on to the tax payers.

With regard to Open Government, it does not include the release of personal information, which must be protected in accordance with the privacy provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative.

Concerning your request for a fee waiver, thank-you for your explanations. As mentioned in our letter dated November 2, please provide proof of your financial hardship and/or how the dissemination of the records at issue will benefit public health and safety. For assistance, please refer to the “Fees, Fee Estimates and Fee Waivers” reference material produced by the Information and Privacy Commissioner: https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fees.pdf.

__________________________________________________________________________________

My next response: 

Dear FOI office of the Attorney General,

First. You state:

• "The records at issue may contain personal information and therefore does not fall within the Open Government initiative."

I am not requesting any personal information. If the records I am seeking, do contain personal information, the usual procedure is to redact this information. Therefore clearly releasing personal information to me is not an issue and my request satisfies the Open Government policy.

Second. The document you sent me states:

• "When is it fair and equitable to waive fees?...whether the requester worked constructively with the institution to narrow the scope of the request; whether the requester has advanced a compromise solution which would reduce costs;"

I have twice now agreed to reduce the scope of my request.

Third. The document you sent me states:

• "Generally, the requester must provide details regarding his/her financial situation, which may include information about income, assets and expenses." 

Obviously I have no intention of providing anyone with information "about my income, assets and expenses." This would be a breach of my privacy rights.

Fourth. On numerous previous occasions I have obtained FOI information from the Ontario government. Fees have never been requested of me, except once. That one time I complained and that fee was waived. Therefore the Ontario government has clearly demonstrated a history of not charging me fees. Why should fees now be charged?

Fifth. You ask me how these records:

• "at issue will benefit public health and safety". 

This abortion bubble zone law's alleged reason for being, is to protect the health and safety of women who go to abortion facilities. Notice that the intention is to protect these women. I see no allowance in the legislation that would provide protection to pro-life people whose health and safety is frequently in danger from people who spit at us; who rip up our signs; who threaten us; who confront us with verbal obscenities; and who block us from our annual peaceful March for life all the while hiding their identity by covering their faces. Our health and safety is threatened frequently in these many ways but we have no protection against that. This is why I want to be able to understand why this legislation was enacted--why are we not also provided with health and safety protection? Why are we being discriminated against by our politicians and others and why is this discrimination allowed to continue?

I look forward to hearing back from you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Abortion bubble zone - to Ottawa city council

Dear City of Ottawa Councillors,

From: Patricia Maloney 
Date: Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 4:10 PM
Subject: Run with life: Abortion bubble zone - law of unintended consequences

To: diane.deans@ottawa.ca, Marianne.wilkinson@ottawa.ca, "Nussbaum, Tobi" , "Watson, Jim (Mayor/Maire)" , jeff.leiper@ottawa.ca, jan.harder@ottawa.ca, Mathieu Fleury , catherine.mckenney@ottawa.ca, Bob.Monette@ottawa.ca, jody.mitic@ottawa.ca, Eli.El-Chantiry@ottawa.ca, Shad.Qadri@ottawa.ca, Mark.Taylor@ottawa.ca, Rick.Chiarelli@ottawa.ca, Keith.Egli@ottawa.ca, Tim.Tierney@ottawa.ca, River Ward , David.Chernushenko@ottawa.ca, Jean.Cloutier@ottawa.ca, Stephen.Blais@ottawa.ca, George.Darouze@ottawa.ca, Scott.Moffatt@ottawa.ca, Allan.Hubley@ottawa.ca, Michael.Qaqish@ottawa.ca

I just thought that you'd like to know the effect your abortion bubble zone is having on pro-life people, especially Catholics. 

Your discrimination against us, is having the opposite effect of what you intended. What it means is that we are making more of an effort to go to the abortion site and pray there.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Abortion bubble zone - law of unintended consequences

There is an interesting side effect to the abortion bubble zone law. Because of this law, I am far more inclined to go and pray at the abortion facility in Ottawa. We were there again today. We even prayed for Kathleen, Patrick, Justin and Jim.

Mind you, as you can see, they have the entrance to the abortion facility covered up with scaffolding and boards. And there's no construction going on there so what's up with that? Clearly they've done that to prevent us from "observing" the place. And as you know we aren't allowed to "observe" the abortion facility. No. No. No.

Just to make sure I didn't accidentally "observe" the abortion facility, I observed this instead:

Yes. I'm pretty sure I will now be visiting the abortion facility a lot more often now. To pray. For the women; that they will choose life for their pre-born children. For our politicians; that they will stop taking away our rights. For the abortion doctors; that they will stop performing abortions. And all of these prayers are a very good thing indeed.

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - Michael Coren

"fundamentalist fanatics"

"angry zealots"

"right-wing fringes of Christianity"

"arch-conservative views"

"protesters howling"

This is what Michael Coren calls pro-life people. Naturally he agrees with the abortion bubble zone law.

I'd love to know where and when Coren has witnessed this kind of behaviour from pro-life people. Because I never have.

I think Coren may have learned the pro-choice chauvinist lingo from his new friends on the far left. Maybe he's had writing lessons from say Heather Mallick. Or maybe Joyce Arthur. Or maybe even Fern Hill.

Whoever it was, they taught him well. I hope he enjoys his new company.