Charter Challenge interview on Lighthouse News

Al Sebring from Lighthouse news interviews me and André Schutten on our charter challenge to the Ontario Government.

Kathleen and Dalton: eighth wonder of the world

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

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

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

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

Politicians and respect for taxpayers

Politicians are a funny lot. Some of them seem to forget who they work for. That would be you and me. You know, the taxpayer? We pay their salaries from our hard earned income. They are our employees.

We may not want to pay their salaries, for the simple reason that we may not adhere to their pro-abortion ideology, or their abuse of power, or their paying off gas plants for political purposes, or for hiding abortion data. Regardless. We are stuck with them. And they are stuck with us.

So when we ask them a direct question, I think we deserve a direct answer. No obfuscating. No ignoring us. No buck passing.

At the very least, they owe us this.

And so, regarding my letter to Premier Kathleen Wynne, I received this reply from her yesterday :

Thank you for taking the time to send your emails. I have noted your concerns. 

As the issue you raised falls within the area of responsibility of my colleague the Honourable Deb Matthews, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, I have asked that she or a member of her staff respond to you directly.

Thank you again for writing. Please accept my best wishes.  

Kathleen Wynne
Premier of Ontario 

cc: The Honourable Deb Matthews

To which I replied...again.

Hello again Ms. Wynne, 

Has your open and transparent government initiative now been moved over to the Ministry of Health then? Since it was you who announced this initiative, I assumed that it is your initiative and not Minister Matthews. If this indeed is the Ministry of Health's initiative, please confirm this for me. 

I also notice that you state in your reply to me, that you have "noted my concerns." I was actually asking you a question in my email. I would be ever so pleased if you would kindly answer my question: 

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

Our government is elected to serve the people, and salaries of our politicians are paid for by citizens like me. Therefore I am sure you would agree that responding to a citizen's direct question deserves a clear and simple response. 

I look forward to hearing back from you soon. 

Thank you. 

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

RU-486 is a bad idea

We should be very cautious about approving the abortion drug RU-486 in Canada. There are health concerns about this drug, and this alone should cause us grave concern. But what about our democratic rights? As Mike Schouten at weneedalaw.ca says:

"The Conservative government along with all the political parties in Ottawa have denounced any attempts at debating abortion in the House of Commons. That Health Canada could approve RU-486 through the proverbial backdoor is contrary to democratic principles that should allow for an abortion discussion"

And speaking about democracy (or lack there of) what about the fact that in Ontario right now, no person can do a Freedom of Information request on anything related to abortion services?

This would mean that any and all information (in Ontario) regarding this new drug, like how many abortions occurred using the drug, what complications women are experiencing from the drug, how many deaths are attributable to it, etc. would now be completely hidden from us.

Since most abortions in Canada are done in Ontario, and if RU-486 is approved, we can extrapolate that most of the RU-486 abortions will also be done in Ontario. And because everything related to abortion is now hidden in Ontario, any complications, how many prescriptions doctor's write, etc.--all will be hidden under a cloak of secrecy. By allowing RU-486, the federal government will be just exacerbating the abortion cover-up in provinces like Ontario (and BC to a certain extent as well).

In Ontario, in 2010 there were at least 44,000 abortions performed in Ontario. That's 53% more than officially reported by the Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI) (CIHI only reported 28,765). 

CIHI already does not report medical abortions, as well as abortions done in doctor's offices. And now with RU-486, none of those abortions will be reported either.

Women will be getting more and more access to abortion, while we get less and less information about these abortions. This is a deadly combination for women.

The other grave concern we should have with RU-486 for the women taking it, is for those women who may live in remote areas of the country, and/or places where abortions are not currently available.

In this article by the CBC, Dawn Fowler, the Canadian director of the National Abortion Federation, says it can take a day or two for women in rural and remote communities to travel to a bigger centre to have an abortion. She says that this is "about delivering safe, quality care". 

Yet in remote parts of our country, like reservations, there are very good reasons why this drug should not be made available to women because it won't be safe. If a women has a serious problem while taking this new drug, and if she is in need of expert medical care to treat her for that problem, that care may not be readily available to her in these remote or unserviced places, putting the women at great personal risk.

We already know that--contrary to what abortion advocates like to tell us--abortion is already not safe. Many say that abortion complication rates are less than 1%. Yet Echo, an Ontario government "pro-choice" agency, informs us that complication rates for abortions are actually between 6.95% and7.70%:

NDP MP Libby Davies says approving RU-486 is important to a lot of women who do not have access to reproductive choice. My goodness, Ms. Davies is a woman and a Member of Parliament. Surely she can get out of the way of her own ideology to see the potential danger this drug can have on women.

With this kind of advocacy for this deadly drug coming from the powerful National Abortion Federation, and from the ideological NDP, women's health will take a back seat to the abortion industry's and pharmaceuticals' profits.

RU-486 is bad for all of us. This drug should not be approved.

Backbone of Conservative values is "do not discuss abortion"

I'm still getting these emails from the Conservatives as they kick up into high gear for an election.

Last week I got this one:

The byelections in Thornhill and Niagara Falls are just over two weeks away.   

Hundreds of volunteers are working with our two all-star candidates, Gila Martow and Bart Maves, to help them get elected. 

They're doing everything they can, but we need your help, too.  Please click here to donate today! 

There are many, many reasons to support Gila and Bart.  Here are five:
    They will be strong advocates for their constituents.
    Bart's 12 years of combined political experience, and Gila's 23 years fundraising and volunteering for children's charities and non-profits.
    They're committed to bringing good, well-paying jobs back to Ontario.
    They're passionate about putting Ontario back on the path to prosperity.
    Because people have had enough of the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals and their NDP supporters. 

Our campaigns run on your contributions.  Every dollar you donate helps us fund another ad, buy an other sign, and purchase more lit to hand out at the door.   

We can't do it without you. 

DONATE TODAY to help us win in Thornhill and Niagara Falls. 

Thank you for your generous support, 

The Ontario PC Party

To which I responded:

Nope. Won't be supporting Gila and Bart. The Ontario Conservatives don't support access to information rights, so why should I support the Conservatives? And...they don't have the courage to say so.

To which MPP Michael Harris's office responded:

I just wanted to follow up on your comments, which are quite concerning. The Ontario Progressive Conservatives are all for accountability and transparency. It’s the backbone of our values. Would you mind giving me your postal code so we can have your MPP call you? 

To which I responded:

Finally someone has responded to me, thank you! 

I must beg to differ however about the Conservatives being for accountability and transparency and I'll tell you why. And I have already met with my MPP Madeleine Meilleur. She seemed completely oblivious to what her government did with the Bill 122, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. 

I've also been questioning both the Kathleen Wynne, Deb Matthews, Tim Hudak, and countless other MPPs on what happened in 2010, when the Liberal government excluded abortion services from all Freedom of Information requests, of which I do many. And that was the only medical procedure excluded from the act. Why is that?

And I was not asking for patient's names or doctor's names. I was asking for total procedures done and their cost. Because of this law, from here on in, all abortion numbers and dollars spent on abortions will be hidden from the public in Ontario. That is neither accountable nor transparent government. 

The Conservatives did nothing to stop this attack on accountability and transparency, and I have asked Mr. Hudak why, and written to him (and other Conservatives) many times. They refuse to respond. 

After much pressure to the Liberals about what they did, I have received a couple of "no response" responses. In other words, they don't answer my questions. And neither could Ms. Meilleur.

Please go to my blog and you can see what's been going on.

You can also do a search on my blog for Bill-122 Bill 122 or the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, and you will see all my writings on this topic, including my letters to Mr. Hudak, Ms. Meilleur and Ms. Wynne. There's a ton there. 

If accountability and transparency is the backbone of PC values, then why isn't Mr. Hudak doing something about this? 

But if I could find a Conservative ally in Mr Harris, that would be awesome.  My feeling however, is that there is a "do not discuss abortion" rule in the Conservative Party, just as there is with most politicians. I hope Mr. Harris can convince me otherwise. 

I look forward to hearing back from Mr. Harris. 

Did I hear back from Mr. Harris?

Nope. I guess the Ontario Conservatives can't actually care about accountability and transparency. They just like to say they do.

The abortion exclusion clause - no transparency here

Nobody asked for the abortion exclusion clause to be inserted into Bill 122 (the Broader Sector Accountability Act and the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA).

Not a single person. Not a single organization. Nobody.

So how did the exclusion clause end up in the Bill?

There were no hospitals advising for the exclusion clause. There were no physicians advising for the exclusion clause. There was no public at large advising for the exclusion clause.

There was one person though, who advised the government against putting in the exclusion clause.

Through a Freedom of Information request, I learned that Cybele Sack, a patient care advocate, advised the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to not include the abortion exclusion clause. Ms. Sack made her submission on November 23, 2010:

"Current provisions in Bill 122 which should be reconsidered given the patient safety context:- Not applying it to boards of health, health professionals' personal practice, abortion services..."

If doctors and physicians had advised the government to put the clause in (as my MPP Madeleine Meilleur indicated to me), I would have seen those recommendation in the FOI. 

No other stakeholder made any reference to the clause. Their presentations are here and here. The word "abortion" doesn't appear anywhere in these consultations.

In any event, the clause was already in the Bill before public consultations took place. If someone had asked the government to put the clause in, I would see that in what I received. I didn't. 

Did the Minister put the clause in herself for ideological reasons?

I've given Minister Deb Matthews ample opportunity to explain the source of the clause. But she can't, or won't, or doesn't want to.

The only logical explanation is that--contrary to my MPP's statements that the Ministry doesn't put in clauses for their own sake, but rather that it is only done after public consultations--the Ministry or Minister put this clause into the Bill.

Here is the narrative of what Ms. Meilleur told me when I met her in her office:

I asked her why the exclusion clause was included in the Bill. She said that it came into affect:

"to assist hospitals, at the request of the hospitals, to maintain the quality and the privacy of the information. So it was not specific to abortion, it was among other things...I don't think you'd like your private information to be disclosed to the public." 

When I pressed her further she said:

"at the request of the hospital, at the request of the physician, this was supported...the objective of this government and past governments have put in place the Freedom of Information Act, so it was to protect certain information, and this was added because of concerns the physicians had and the concern the hospitals had, so that's why it's in place." 

I then asked her to confirm that the hospitals and physicians has asked to have this exclusion clause. Her response was: 

"When we do amendments it's not because the government that decides there is an amendment, it's at the request of others and it's discussed and its put forward after wide consultations with those concerned". 

As I continued to press her on this, she responded: 

"You know what, it's not my Ministry so I don't know all the details, so I think that these questions should be put to the Ministry of Health to see how it came about. You will get the information." 

She said it was: 

"the hospitals, the physicians and the public at large...the Minister can give you the specifics...the Minister has all the answers...your questions are very detailed...send her a letter and cc me so when she replies I will receive your response...the Ministry has all the expertise and all the answers..."

It may be the case that the Minister has all the answers. But she won't share them with me. After sending her many emails and calling her office many times, I still don't have any of the answers, never mind "all the answers". 

The only feasible answer is that the Minister herself is responsible for the clause. A clause that does away with our access to information rights.

If I'm wrong, she should let me know.

My response to the Premier - who never responded to me

January 10, 2014

Dear Ms. Wynne,

As noted in my email below to Ms. Matthews, I sent you a question on October 20, 2013, regarding your Open and Transparent Government initiative. Perhaps you missed it in my first letter? If so, would you be so kind as to answer it for me now?

Here it is again:

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

Thank you so much.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

My response to Deb Matthews

January 10, 2014

Dear Ms. Matthews,

Thank you for your December 19 response to my October 15 and 16 letters in which I asked you six questions regarding the abortion exclusion clause your government made to the Ontario Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FIPPA).

You say that the Premier Kathleen Wynne referred my email to her, to you--regarding her Open and Transparent Government Initiative. I had asked Ms. Wynne if she would lift the secrecy of the availability of abortion statistics under this initiative. However, I could not find your answer to this question in your letter. I will go back to Ms. Wynne and ask her the question again.

In your letter you state that:

"Regarding the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) published abortion statistics, I understand that CIHI specifically indicates that when reporting abortion figures, counts of abortions by province are an underestimate count and that it is currently the best way to produce pan-Canadian comparable data. For information on CIHI’s compilation of statistical data you may wish to contact CIHI directly."

I have contacted CIHI on numerous occasions already about this. 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?

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

New Year's Message to Kathleen Wynne

Open and transparent Ontario government in downward spiral

I finally received my long awaited response from the Ontario Minister of Health, Deb Matthews, regarding my questions to her. And regarding my questions to Premier Wynne.

It is a sad little letter that doesn't actually answer any of my questions, so I'm not really sure why she bothered. Maybe she was just trying to shut me up. 

(I wonder if Deb liked my comic and if Kathleen enjoyed my video?)

Regardless, I'm formulating my reply to her now. Stay tuned.

In the meantime, I know you're dying to read what the Honourable Ms. Matthews wrote, so here it is for your reading enjoyment on this snowy-and-soon-to-be-more-snowy week in Ottawa land.

HLTC2966MC-2013-9720

Thank you for your e-mails advising of your meeting with Madeleine Meilleur, MPP for Ottawa--Vanier, and for your questions regarding records relating to the provision of abortion services, under section 65. (5.7) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Premier Kathleen Wynne has also referred your e-mail of October 21, 2013, on the same matter to me for response.

The passing of Bill 122, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, 2010, which contained the provisions that amended FIPPA so as to bring hospitals under FIPPA, followed the customary legislative process, ensuring there was opportunity for public scrutiny, input and open debate. On October 20, 2010, the bill received first reading, and at that time it was publicly available for review.

After second reading on November 16, 2010, the bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. The committee held public hearings on the bill on November 22nd and November 23, 2010, at which time eighteen interested parties made deputations to the committee.The bill was also debated several times in the House after both second and third readings. As a result, there was ample opportunity for views on any issues associated with the bill to be considered. For more detail about the passing of Bill 122 the following Legislative Assembly of Ontario Website link takes you to the Bill 122 summary:

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2420&isCurrent=false&detailPage=bills_detail_status 

Regarding the Canadian Institute for Health Information’s (CIHI) published abortion statistics, I understand that CIHI specifically indicates that when reporting abortion figures, counts of abortions by province are an underestimate count and that it is currently the best way to produce pan-Canadian comparable data.  For information on CIHI’s compilation of statistical data you may wish to contact CIHI directly.

Thank you again for writing. I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY

Deb Matthews
Minister
cc: Premier Kathleen Wynne
    Madeleine Meilleur, MPP

A day in the life of a pro-life blogger

Ontario's "open and transparent initiative" isn't very open or transparent

I asked the Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne, a question about her open and transparent government initiative on October 21.

I asked her if the initiative would "include the lifting of the secret curtain on abortion services in Ontario?"

I have followed up that letter, with numerous emails and telephone calls, trying to find out exactly when the Premier would be answering my question.

The only person who has ever called me back was someone from the correspondence unit. All she could tell me was that they had received my letter. When I questioned her further, she had no idea as to when I could expect a response.

The premier's automated response says that:

"Given the volume of emails and letters I receive, and the fact that I may need to share your email with one of my Cabinet ministers or the appropriate government officials for more information, a response may take several business days."

Clearly I've waited longer than "several business days".

On December 10 when I called again, I was told it could take another four weeks, but the receptionist couldn't tell me more than that.

It's already been almost two months now, that I have been waiting.

I was watching Ms. Wynne's video on youtube this week. It did inspire me I have to say.



It inspired me so much, that I posted my own message for Ms. Wynne.

Government data belongs to the people

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

She wants to

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

Good idea.

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

I just did.

Open and transparent government is coming to Ontario

Dear Ms. Wynne,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I look forward to hearing back from you soon.

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Meet your MPP and ask why abortions services are excluded from FIPPA

I met with my MPP Madeleine Meilleur this week, about the recent changes to FIPPA to exclude abortion services. I had already written to her.

(In this meeting, Ms. Meilleur seemed somewhat confused as to what this change to FIPPA actually was. She did state at the end of our conversation that this is not her portfolio [Health]. Understood. But this is her own government's changes to the law. She also didn't know what CIHI was. Again a surprise, especially since the change to the law, and CIHI were both mentioned in her response to my original letter to her.)

I asked her why the government put the abortion exclusion clause into FIPPA.

Ms. Meilleur responded:

"We amended the Freedom of Information Act at the request of the hospitals to maintain the quality and the privacy of the information, so it was not specific to abortion. It's among other things [in the act]. I don't think you would like your private information to be disclosed to the public." 

I explained to Ms. Meilleur, that the change had nothing to do with privacy. That I agree that private information should never be released, however there is no private information in what I'm asking for. I'm asking for totals of abortion statistics, those done in hospitals, in private physician offices and clinics. I said that private and personal information is already excluded from the act. I said that because it is important to have good statistics, and it doesn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice, we need to have accurate statistics for all health concerns for women.

I asked her again, saying that I'm just trying to understand why the Ontario government did this. They haven't excluded information for woman who have breast cancer, or knee surgeries. So why did they exclude abortion services?

Ms.Meilleur responded:

"The answer is that at the request of the hospitals, at the request of the physician, this was supported. I know your objective but the objective of this government, and of past governments, who have put in place the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act, so it was added to protect certain information, so this was added, because of concerns the hospitals have, so that's why it's in place."

Again she brought the discussion back to privacy, which is clearly not what this is about. In any event, instead I asked her:

"So are you saying that the hospitals and physicians asked to have this excluded?"

Ms. Meilleur responded:

"When they do an amendment it's not because the government wants an amendment, it's at the request of others and its discussed, and put forward after wide consultation."

When I asked her to expand on that she said:

"Well you know what, I don't know all the details. So I think these questions should be put to the Ministry of Health, as to how it's come about."

So did the government consult the hospitals and doctors on this abortion exclusion clause? First I've heard of this.

She added that consultations were done with the public at large. Again a surprise to me. She said that usually that's the way it's done, the way that amendments are brought about. She said I should ask the Minister and that the Minister would give me specific details. She said she didn't know all the details around the changes.

Then I explained CIHI and their role and asked the question: how can I use CIHI's numbers for research when they are inaccurate? She said didn't know about this organization and couldn't answer my question.

She said that the questions I had asked her in my letter, were sent to the Minister's office, so the response I received would have came from the Minister.

She finished with this:

"Send your questions to the Minister who has the expertise, they have all the answers."

That I did. Write to Ms. Deb Matthews, Minister of Health and Long Term Care. Who has all the answers. I'm dying to know what they are.

I hope others will go to their own MPPs and ask him or her about why this change to FIPPA.

Minister of Health Deb Matthews has all the answers on abortion exclusion clause

I met with my MPP this week Madeleine Meilleur (see here for what she told me).

I have now sent a letter to Minister Deb Matthews with these questions, as per Ms. Meilleur's suggestion. She told me that Deb Matthews has all the answers.

1) First of all, what rationale did the government have for excluding abortion services from FIPPA?

2) Second, since taxpayers fund abortion, in the same way they fund all medical services, why was this one service singled out for exclusion, when no other services were excluded?

Ms. Meilleur's letter of response to me regarding those two questions, stated that "the inclusion of hospitals under FIPPA is a strong indication of the Government's commitment to enhancing openness and transparency in the public sector."

She also mentioned that CIHI publishes Ontario statistics in their report and can be used for "research purposes", and that the changes "were debated in the Legislature".

So based on Ms. Meilleur's response (which didn't actually answer my questions), I added four additional questions for Ms. Matthews.

3. Can you please explain how exempting abortion services from FIPPA "enhances openness and transparency in the public sector"?

4. I agree that CIHI publishes abortion statistics for Ontario. However CIHI's statistics are grossly under reported for numerous reasons including the fact that CIHI does not base their numbers on OHIP billings; abortions done in private physician's offices are not included; and many clinics do not report abortions performed. In fact CIHI's statistics for Ontario are understated by at least 45%.

Please see here for more accurate abortion statistics I did for 2010 based on OHIP billings:
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/05/revised-2010-ontario-abortions-tell-sad.html

Can you explain to me how someone doing research into Ontario's abortion statistics, would use information that is inaccurate?

5. The letter states that "These amendments were debated and passed in the Legislature." Can you please provide me with the links to Hansard where the abortion exclusion clause was debated in the Legislature?

6) Ms. Meilleur stated that the changes to FIPPA were made because the hospitals and doctors requested the changes. Can you please tell me how and when these consultations took place. Were they meetings or submitted briefs?