Po-choice people can express freedom of expression rights but pro-life people cannot

Today was the first day of the new bubble zone legislation. Pro-life people are now banned from exercising their freedom of expression rights to protest abortion within 50 metres of any abortion facility in Ontario.

We already know that there is no need for a bubble zone. My FOI on police reports at 65 Bank Street revealed no assaults where a charge was laid.

Here is the line we cannot cross.

Here's the sign that delimits the area. Do not protest on the wrong side of this sign unless you want a fine and or go to jail.

About 17 metres away at the corner of Sparks St. and Bank were the "pro-choice" protesters.

So here's the thing. Pro-life people are banned from exercising their freedom of expression rights and must do so outside the bubble zone. But "pro-choice" people can exercise their freedom of expression rights (they're actually protesting us) inside the bubble zone.

I think this is called a double standard.

This double standard is because in the Ontario government's paternalistic approach to pro-lifers. They must ensure that at all times our Charter rights are denied at every possible moment, and at any possible place they deem appropriate.

Paul Lauzon got some great pictures and footage of this continued campaign of discrimination against pro-life people.

Here is Maureen Ward's playlist of four short videos. Included in this list is a short video of the "pro-choice" people exercising their freedom of expression rights, the same rights we are not allowed to express.

New FOI reveals even less evidence for abortion bubble zone

Remember I told you about the police reports at 65 Bank St. for 2014 to June 2017? There were 64 incidents in 41 months. That's 1.56 incidents per month. Of those 64 incidents, there were no injuries and no charges laid.

Today I received more information from the police reports. This time for 2010-2013. There were 113 incidents in 48 months. That's 2.35 incident per month. Out of those 113 incidents, there were--once again--no injuries and no charges laid.

This means that in the most recent period (2014 to June, 2017), the number of police reports have actually decreased by 33.6% from the previous three year period (2010 to 2013).

So why do we need a bubble zone at all?

Also remember that the abortion bubble zone law is a direct result of Ottawa mayor Jim Watson who discriminates against pro-life people. Watson initiated this law. Watson also took down our pro-life flag at city hall during the March for Life. Watson also refused to respond to my repeated requests for an explanation for why our March for Life was rerouted so 100 masked thugs could divert 14,000 peaceful people.

I guess we could call Ottawa the abortion capital of the world:

• No protection for life and no protection for the rights of those who defend life
• Justin Trudeau is the most pro-abortion federal leader ever
• Kathleen Wynne and Patrick Brown are the most pro-abortion provincial leaders ever. I guess you could say two for the price of one
• And now we can add Jim Watson as the most pro-abortion mayor ever

China and North Korea have nothing on Canada. How embarrassing.

Conservatives in Ontario are puppets of the Liberals

During our Charter challenge, the Ontario government was told to overturn this clause Section 65.(5.7):

“This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

So what did this bunch do to effect this change? Yes, they repealed the clause. But then they added in a new clause. Now they won't allow anyone to go to a specific hospital and ask them how many abortions they are doing (see in red below):

Non-application of Act, provision of abortion services
(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; or 

(b) disclosure of the information could reasonably be expected to threaten the health or safety of an individual, or the security of a facility or other building. 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2). 

Same, pharmacies
(14) A reference in subsection (13) to a facility includes reference to a pharmacy, hospital pharmacy or institutional pharmacy, as those terms are defined in subsection 1 (1) of the Drug and Pharmacies Regulation Act. 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2). 

Related statistical information
(15) For greater certainty, this Act applies to statistical or other information relating to the provision of abortion services that does not meet the conditions of clause (13) (a) or (b). 2017, c. 19, Sched. 2, s. 1 (2).

And to add insult to injury--they stuck this new section into Bill 163, Protecting a Woman's Right to Access Abortion Services Act, 2017.

Last time the PCs didn't know what hit them when the Liberals excluded abortion information from FIPPA. They didn't have a clue that it had happened while they slept. This time it's much better--the gutless PCs knowingly voted for the bill.

Thank you Patrick Brown. Kathleen Wynne must love having you in opposition.

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 - hypocrisy of politicians

See earlier today on this bubble zone law

And All three provincial party leaders have weighed in on Quebec's new law banning face coverings.

Kathleen Wynne's denunciation of Quebec's law.

The media has been badgering politicians for their opinions on Quebec's law since that law was passed. Is the media asking our politicians about this Ontario bubble law? Of course not. Our media doesn't care. Our politicians not only don't care but they are the author of this law.

Discrimination against Catholics. Double standard. Hypocrisy.

Remember the Communists in Russia? How they tried to eradicate Christianity and God?

If we continue to sit back on our complacent little haunches, Catholics and all Christians in Canada will be next.

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics: we are in the world we are not of the world

From LifeSite News:

"Ontario’s legislators passed a bill criminalizing pro-life speech and expression outside abortion clinics today by a vote of 86-1. 

MPP Jack MacLaren, a member of the Trillium Party, cast the sole dissenting vote. 

PC Conservative MPPs Sam Oosterhoff, Monte McNaughton and Rick Nicholls were not in the House for the vote."

This morning my sister Maureen and I were scheduled to pray at the abortion facility on Bank St.  We went as planned. We prayed the Rosary. Another lady joined us from Our Lady of Fatima parish. The three of us prayed the Divine Mercy Chaplet.

We made sure we didn't "observe" the abortion facility because that is now illegal. I "observed" the ground in front of me.

None of us "observed" the abortion site.

Heck the birds started singing when we were praying.

Fr. Raymond de Souza calls it secular fundamentalism.

It's amazingly hypocritical that Jim Watson is speaking out against the Niqab ban in Quebec but is perfectly fine with banning Catholics from being at the abortion site.

"In his letter dated Tuesday, Watson pointed out that Ottawa residents regularly use public services across the Ottawa River. 

"I am saddened that, in doing so, they will not enjoy the same freedoms as they do in Ottawa," Watson wrote...  

"...I sincerely hope that, with the opportunity for reflection, your government will abandon what can only be described as a thinly veiled appeal to populist sentiment, in light of the divisive effects."

"They will not enjoy the same freedoms as they do in Ottawa"? 

"Thinly veiled appeal to populist sentiment, in light of the divisive effects"?

Does Watson have a clue as to the hypocrisy and irony of what he's saying? Maybe Watson should do some "reflecting" of his own. In fact it was Watson who instigated this anti-free speech bill. 

Please email Kathleen, Patrick, Nasir and Jim and tell them what you think of this anti-freedom, anti-Catholic, and anti-free speech bill.

kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
jim.watson@ottawa.ca

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics - part 2

From the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL):

• The CCRL’s opposition to Bill 163 focuses on the following:
• The government has failed to identify or address any need for the intrusion and limitation into the constitutional right to freedom of expression
• The bill’s penal sanctions are an intrusion into the federal power over criminal law, and present a lowering of the thresholds typically required to constitute the offence of “harassment” under the Criminal Code
• All parties by their support of the bill are engaging in political suppression of dissenting viewpoints, with the invention of the need for broad areas of “no go” zones, the total effect of which (conceivably, bubble zones around all pharmacies in urban areas), the bill engages in overreach to impose its dubious objectives

This is what Catholics won't be able to do anymore: Pray peacefully and silently at the abortion facilities across Ontario. 

Please sign the petition. 

Then send an email to Attorney General Yasir Naqvi, Premier Kathleen Wynne, PC leader Patrick Brown, and NDP leader Andrea Horvath telling them to respect our freedom of conscience rights, freedom of religion rights. freedom of assembly rights and freedom of expression rights.

kwynne.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org
ynaqvi.mpp@liberal.ola.org
patrick.brown@ontariopc.com
ahorwath-qp@ndp.on.ca

Abortion bubble zone goes after Catholics

Don't kid yourself. This new bubble zone legislation isn't about the supposed harassment that goes on at abortion facilities by pro-life persons. It's about discrimination against Christians.

And we have Strawberry Social Jim Watson to thank for this stupidity.

We already know that there is no need for a bubble zone. My FOI on police reports at 65 Bank Street revealed no assaults where a charge was laid.

This is what the bubble zone will do:

3 (1)  While in an access zone established under section 6 for a clinic or facility, no person shall,  (a)  advise or persuade, or attempt to advise or persuade, a person to refrain from accessing abortion services;  (b)  inform or attempt to inform a person concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;   (c)  perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means;  (d)  persistently request that,           (i)  a person refrain from accessing abortion services, or          (ii)  a protected service provider refrain from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services;  (e)  for the purpose of dissuading a person from accessing abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the person,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the person, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the person;   (f)  for the purpose of dissuading a protected service provider from providing, or assisting in the provision of, abortion services,           (i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,          (ii)  physically interfere with or attempt to physically interfere with the provider,         (iii)  intimidate or attempt to intimidate the provider, or         (iv)  photograph, film, videotape, sketch or in any other way graphically record the provider; or  (g)  do anything prescribed for the purpose of this clause.

Notice this clause:

(i)  continuously or repeatedly observe the clinic or facility or persons entering or leaving the clinic or facility,

I am not kidding. You cannot OBSERVE an abortion facility.

Are Kathleen and friends serious? The only "observing" I've ever seen done at the abortion facility is when people stand across the street silently praying and "observing" said abortion facility. Which Catholics do. Which I have done. Which I will do. During this year's 40 days for life. And at other times. You can't do that. Anymore.

What about my religious right to say the rosary? Is that banned too? Is that what Kathleen and friends have in store for us next?

I'm not even talking about the gross trampling this law will have on our rights to freedom of speech, freedom or assembly, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.

This is a sneaky witch hunt against practicing Catholics. Of course the Liberals are good at sneaky. They wrote the book on sneaky.

Will the leader of the opposition Patrick Brown speak up for us? I doubt it.

A letter to Patrick Brown - I don't support you

From: Jennifer Snell
To: Garfield Dunlop <Thomas.DeGroot@ontariopc.com>
Cc: Patrick Brown <patrick.brown@pc.ola.org>; MPP Monte McNaughton <monte.mcnaughton@pc.ola.org>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2017 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: Jennifer, Here is your invitation to a fundraiser at the Wilcoxs'

To whom is reading this reply: 

I worked very hard to have Patrick Brown elected as leader of the PC party in Ontario. This is something I very much regret doing. 

Patrick is not the leader that he promised to be. He has betrayed people like me. His support of the many liberal policies makes me very very upset. I don't need to list the issues as I'm sure you get the picture. I am a Catholic and live by the teachings of the Catholic Church. I will not support the evil of the current liberal party nor that of the current PC party. 

Please understand this is not personal attack against the good people who remain in the PC party but an indication that thousands of social conservatives like myself will not support the PC party of Ontario under its current leader. In my opinion there is no difference between the liberal party under Kathleen W. and the PC party under Patrick B. 

May God protect Ontario and Canada.

Jennifer Snell

The freedom to hear what people have to say

Excellent article by Andrew Potter on free speech that tells us that the real importance of free speech is not so much the freedom to speak (though that is important), but the freedom to hear what others say:

"...We got here because the problem is with the way we framed the question, as a debate over the benefits of free speech and the consequences we are willing to tolerate. Instead, what we should be focused on is the right of people to hear what others have to say, and how this fits into a broader account of individual freedom.

What’s the difference? If you turn the free speech debate on its head and treat it as a right to hear what someone has to say, the constitutional rationale for it becomes a lot clearer: The right to hear or read something and judge its worth or merit for yourself is the basis for being treated as an equal, rational and autonomous agent. We shield things from children precisely because we don’t think their rational faculties are sufficiently well developed. They don’t know how to evaluate something by their own lights. That’s why a big part of parenting is bringing kids along the path to autonomy, teaching them to judge and think for themselves.

Hearing what people have to say and judging its merits for yourself is the mark of being an adult. And part of being an adult is having the right to make mistakes, to make bad judgments or decisions, and take responsibility for what follows. 

It just so happens that a society made up of autonomous individuals making independent rational judgments about what others have to say is the basic condition for the possibility of a liberal democracy. The fact that so many people, on the right and the left, are willing to have their right to hear limited by governments, universities or even social media mobs, is a further sign of the relentless infantilization of our culture — and goes a long way toward explaining the current crisis of liberalism."

This was the core issue with our charter challenge. Our pro-abortion government under Kathleen Wynne, didn't want pro-life people like myself to discuss anything related to abortion in Ontario. Like numbers of abortions, policies about abortion, etc.

They wanted to shut us down and changing the law seemed like a genius and simple way to do it. Their logic--though they would never admit to this--was that if we don't have the information then we can't talk about it. So they made up specious reasons about safety which were ultimately shot down by the facts and actual logic.

In the end their tactics were neither genius nor simple.

Ontario government will not appeal our FOI case

This is great news. For us. For Ontario citizens. For people who love democracy. For people who love freedom of expression rights. For people who love justice.

Charter challenge - we won - you can't hide abortion information

The Judge ruled in our favour. See judgement here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_QDsYLWnwO6ODBUTGM3d1liNG8/view?usp=sharing

We were successful and the portion of the law excluding abortion-related information was struck down.

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.

Dr. Eric Hoskins - fifth request for abortion information

Dear Dr. Hoskins,

It has now been two months since I first started asking you for abortion information outside of FIPPA. I've already made four requests for this information (my last request was actually number three, not two as I stated). 

And I still haven't heard back from you.

I was assured by your lawyer Dan Guttman, in front of a judge in the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario, that I only needed to ask for this information and I would receive it:

"today we are saying publicly both in our factum and in court here today before you that if we are asked, our position will if we are asked, we will give generalized abortion statistics out."

Yet I still find myself having to ask you for information that the judge was assured would be provided for the asking. And still I haven't heard back from you.

Remember your Open Government initiative?

"Ontario’s Open Government Initiative is about creating a more open and transparent government for the people of Ontario. We are aiming to make Ontario the most open and transparent jurisdiction in Canada by creating increased opportunities for civic dialogue, sharing government data, and providing citizens with the information they need to better understand how their government works." 

Were these just empty words?

Will you please let me know when I can expect to receive this information? 

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Request for abortion information (10 weeks and counting)

April 17, 2017

Dear Dr. Eric Hoskins,

I have now sent you two requests asking for abortion information for 2014/2015, on Feb 2, 2017 and on March 24 2017.

That's more than 10 (ten) weeks ago.

I still haven't heard back from you. Can you please tell me when I can expect an answer?

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

Ont. Gov't still has no conscience protection in Bill 84

Dear Dr. Hoskins,

On April 2, 2017 you are quoted in the Globe and Mail as saying:

“Many of these same people, when they express their concern, they ask us to implement what’s sort of being referred to as the Alberta model...We are implementing the Alberta model.”

I understand that this is NOT the case. The Alberta model does not require any physician involvement – it does not require an effective referral, and the model is entirely patient accessed.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario still requires an effective referral from doctors if requested by a patient – even though a care coordination service has been created.

Many Members of Provincial Parliament and Ministers have been confused by this statement and are now under the incorrect impression that an effective referral is no longer needed with the model the government has implemented.

To protect conscientiously objecting doctors and health care providers here in Ontario we must implement a conscience amendment in Bill 84.

Can you please ensure that proper a conscience clause is inserted into Bill 84?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney

cc Nathalie Des Rosiers

Kathleen Wynne

Gov't still not addressing "duty to refer" clause in Bill 84

After complaining to our MPP Nathalie Desrosiers about the "duty to refer" clause as it relates to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID), a group of us received a response.

Nathalie does not respond to our "duty to refer" concern.

I responded to her with this letter:

Dear Nathalie,

Thanks very much for your email reply to us. 

However I notice that you did not specifically address our very important concern regarding "duty to refer" as it relates to MAID. 

Can you please do so? 

This is a very important issue for all of us. It is also a very important for the doctors whose entire livelihood, and the livelihood of their families, depend on in that they do not want to be forced refer patients to be killed through MAID. 

If they are forced to "refer" patients, many good doctors will leave the profession. This is not what the citizens of Ontario want or need. 

As well, if we are assured of this provision being safeguarded, it also gives us the peace of mind that when we go to a hospital or doctor, that there WILL be doctors who are NOT participating in MAID, and we can feel safe and secure in that knowledge that, we will not be encouraged to prematurely end our lives by killing ourselves. 

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

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney 

cc Kathleen Wynne
Dr. Eric Hoskins Minister of Health and Long Term Care