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.

Gaining insight into New Brunswick's abortion statistics

By Peter Ryan

(Peter Ryan was Executive Director of New Brunswick Right to Life from 1999 to 2016. He recently published his Memoir The God of Life Lives: A Memoir)

The following is an attempt to shed insight into New Brunswick abortion statistics for 2015-19, as compiled by Patricia Maloney.

Ever since the advent of legalized abortion in Canada in 1969, abortion has been anything but a settled issue in New Brunswick. In the early 2000’s, for instance, two of the main hospitals (in Moncton, Fredericton) stopped doing abortions. A third major hospital (Saint John) did few or no abortions for decades. On the other hand, two formerly Catholic hospitals (Bathurst and Francophone hospital in Moncton) began doing abortions.

These instances of institutional aversion to or acceptance of abortion reflected the drama of decisions by individual obstetrician-gynecologists at the different locations. They also reflected New Brunswick’s unusual and, in comparison to most provinces, more restrictive policy: Until 2015, Medicare only covered abortions if they were performed in a hospital by an obstetrician-gynecologist after being certified by two physicians as medically necessary.

That policy became a major issue in the 2014 provincial election. The victorious Liberal party under Brian Gallant campaigned on removing abortion barriers. In 2015 the rules requiring two doctor approval and an ob-gyn were annulled.

Interestingly, the in-a-hospital requirement remained. As a result, the private abortion clinic that has operated in Fredericton since 1994 (first by Henry Morgentaler, then since 2015 by a different owner) is the only one in Canada not publicly funded.

Statistically, the profile for many years – before 2015 - was that about 1,000 surgical abortions a year took place in the province: about 400 in hospitals, and about 600 in the private clinic. This meant an abortion rate of about 13-14 abortions per 100 live births, less than half the Canadian average.

In my judgment New Brunswick’s reduced abortion rate, more restrictive Medicare policy, and exclusion of funding for private clinics reflect a more pro-life social and political culture than elsewhere. That culture was likewise expressed for a number of years when one-third or more of the sitting Members of the Legislature, and coming from both of the main parties (Liberals and Conservatives) attended the annual March for Life in Fredericton.

The ground shifted in 2015, with newly elected premier Brian Gallant touting abortion as a “Charter right,” though it is not. Under government auspices, a new abortion “service” was soon opened at The Moncton Hospital. A provincial hotline was also set up to give women “access” at hospital sites.

Three hospitals were publicly identified as offering abortions: beside The Moncton Hospital, the Dumont Hospital in Moncton (serving Francophones), and the Chaleur in Bathurst. What was not publicly disclosed, and has just now come to light, was that, starting in 2015, the province's other five regional hospitals also began to perform a small number of abortions each year.

Predictably, hospital surgical abortions rose significantly in 2015, 2016 and 2017 according to provincial government figures: 560, 608 and 656, respectively. (1) An average increase of over 50% compared to the 400 per year previously.

The increase for 2015-17 is even greater according to Canadian Institute for Health Information stats: an average of 734 per year, an increase of over 84% from pre-2015 years.

I have no explanation for the discrepancy between NB’s health department stats and those of CIHI. One thing is clear: Public policy changes after the 2014 election had a dramatic impact on the loss of prenatal lives.

As one examines the stats for individual hospitals, one is struck by how The Moncton Hospital has become the dominant center for surgical abortions, with an average of 292 abortions a year from 2016-19.

In 2017 a new phenomenon emerged: “medical abortions,” referring to chemical or mifegymiso (containing RU-486) abortions. That year New Brunswick became the first province to offer free chemical abortions. The government reported 162 in 2017. (2)

Chemical abortion stats then surged hugely in 2018 and 2019: 520 and 704, respectively. At the same time, surgical abortions decreased to 522 and 405, respectively. (3)

What is so dismaying for pro-lifers is that the net total number of Medicare-funded abortions has, during the past two years, reached an annual average of 1,075, more than two and a half times the pre-2015 average.

To give an accurate provincial picture, we must also factor in surgical abortions at the private clinic in Fredericton. While no public stats are available, Clinic 554 says they performed about 1,000 from 2015-19, or about 200 a year. Assuming that information is correct, it would mean a total of about 1,275 NB abortions a year as of 2018 and 2019.

Consequently, comparing the 2018-19 average to the pre-2015 average of about 1,000 abortions, we find the annual provincial total has increased by about 28%. The provincial population increased by less than 4% between 2015 and 2019. This means the lives of preborn children in New Brunswick have become significantly more at risk.

The NB abortion stats compiled for 2015-19 reveal one more newsworthy fact. The provincial government data includes gestational ages of abortions at five of the 8 main hospitals. What is striking is that, from 2015-18, the hospitals in Saint John and Fredericton (Chalmers) seemed to take turns specializing in second trimester abortions, whereas the other three hosptials listed did first-trimester procedures.

In 2015 and 2018 Saint John did a total of 14 abortions at an average age of 16.8 weeks; in 2016 and 2017 Fredericton did a total of 20 at an average age of 16.3. Whereas at the other three hospitals the average age for 2015-18 was 9.3 weeks.

The significantly higher average fetal age of abortions at two previously undisclosed locations is startling in light of complaints repeatedly made in recent years by abortion rights activists that Medicare-funded abortions were not available in hospitals at 14 weeks or more gestation, whereas, they argued, Clinic 554 did them up to 16 weeks but women were forced to pay. The newly published data reveal that, in truth, the hospital system had, since 2015 and without general public knowledge, acquiesced to those complaints, performing abortions up to and past 16 weeks.

Elected in 2018, the government of Blaine Higgs has stood firm against funding the private abortion clinic in Fredericton, despite pressure from the federal government. That pressure has included the withholding of $140,000 in health transfer funds due to NB’s policy.

The abortion situation in New Brunswick continues to be unsettled. In late 2019 Clinic 554 announced that due to lack of public funding they will be forced to close down. The building was put up for sale, though its operations continue in the meantime. How a closure would affect the profile of future hospital abortions remains to be seen.

The safety of preborn babies in New Brunswick has much deteriorated since 2014, reflected in markedly higher abortion numbers. The fact that all eight main hospitals have become involved in abortion, as opposed to two previously, is alarming.

What is especially shocking is how the number of “medical” (chemical) abortions has spiked, even after a new government not known for friendliness to abortion rights took office. Pro-lifers have always tended to focus greatly on the problem of surgical abortions. In the future more attention deserves to be given to chemical abortions, while not ignoring the plight of any preborn child.

On a positive note, New Brunswick’s life-friendly social culture has not greatly eroded. A poll by Narrative Research in February, 2020 found that two-thirds of residents oppose tax-funded abortion on demand.

(1) These totals do no include cases where a hospital performed 5 or fewer abortions.

(2) The government says mifegymiso is for pregnancies up to 7 weeks.

(3) That figure refers to government data; CIHI stats are not yet available for both of those years.

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."

Saskatchewan abortion statistics

Saskatchewan Ministry of Health abortion statistics are once again, different from what CIHI reports.

Also note that after October 1, 2018, the numbers reported by the Ministry of Health do not include medical abortions.

CIHI numbers for Saskatchewan:

2015 - 1,885

2016 - 2,082

2017 - 2,083

2018 - 2,009

Patrick Brown and his under the bus philosophy

It's people like Patrick Brown who give politicians a bad name:

“Frankly, I’m very comfortable with the fact there’s been a falling out. I don’t lose any sleep over the fact that  and Campaign Life are upset,” the PC leader said, adding he now regrets voting against same-sex marriage and abortion when he was a Conservative MP. 

“If Charles McVety wants his ten bucks back for membership, he can have it. If he wants to vote for someone else, he can vote for someone else, so be it,” he said. 

“Frankly, I think they take more credit for any part of my leadership campaign than is merited. I went out and signed up 45,000 members.”

Back in December 2014, I sent an email to a couple of politicians expressing my concern over the Liberals sex-ed curriculum. Almost immediately after I sent the email, Patrick Brown emailed me back from his personal email address (like he did to CLC) asking me for my phone number. I gave it to him and he called me back. He told me in no uncertain terms that he was against the sex-ed curriculum. I asked him at the time if he was also concerned about the Liberals decision to hide abortion information. He told me he was for open access to information, although any further emails I sent him on this subject, remained unanswered (that should have been my first clue to PB's philosophy).

I subsequently bought a membership for myself and my husband and we voted for him for the leadership, which he won. I know many many others who did the same.

It's pretty easy to tell people what they want to hear if you if you don't need to worry about keeping your promises. Because once you've won, well there isn't much they can do about it is there?

Did Patrick Brown sign up 45,000 members? Or did we do it for him?

And Patrick? Johnathon Van Maren has some good advice for you:

"Social conservatives, as I’ve written before, are not numerous enough to single-handedly put someone in office. However, we are numerous enough to ruin the career of someone like Patrick Brown, who has managed to lie to us, betray us, call us intolerant bigots, and then shruggingly suggest we vote for someone else in the confidence that we won’t. If we keep letting politicians like Patrick Brown treat us like that, we are simply ensuring that no politician will ever take us seriously, because they can have their cake and eat it too—they can get so-con votes while telling the Toronto downtown elites that they think we’re kind of repulsive. I think it’s time for social conservatives to show that we care more about putting someone Conservative in power. We have real concerns that need to be addressed, and if Patrick Brown is an impediment to that, then we should treat him as such."

Good luck Patrick in trying to get anyone to believe you ever again. I think you're going to need it.

How can we discuss abortion when we don't have data?

If you Google "how many abortions are done in Ontario each year?" the first link that comes up is a four page chart by pro-abortion Joyce Arthur.

So what does this chart reveal? It reveals there is a lot we don't know about Canadian abortion statistics in general, and Ontario abortion statistics in particular. Of course we already knew this right?

What is interesting about Arthur's charts is that she makes a lot of assumptions about the rate of abortion in Ontario. Which is fair; I always have to do the same. Because when you try and discuss anything without accurate data, you have to make assumptions--you have no choice.

I won't get into why I disagree with Arthur's assumptions, as I've already done that many times before, but right now, that isn't the point. Right now the point is that if you're trying to have a meaningful conversation about anything, never mind about something with as many political, social, and financial repercussions as abortion--well it's all kind of ridiculous, isn't it?

How can she and I even talk about the data and what it means, when we don't even have the data?

In fact, in Arthur's four page analysis, she devotes quite a bit of space to the assumptions she makes about Canada's statistics, including Ontario's abortion numbers based on my freedom of information requests for 2010, the last year we have decent Ontario abortion data. And she has to make assumptions. We all do, because our data is hidden at the whim of a government who did it for political reasons. A non-accountable, non-transparent, non-open government.

As a pro-life person, how can I meaningfully refute Joyce Arthur's assertions that abortions in Ontario are going down when I can't see the data? If someone out there in google land searches for Ontario abortion numbers in Ontario, they may think rates are going up, or that abortion rates are going down, depending on whose information they read. 

If abortions are really going down, or if they're really going up, and we know which, there would be no need to speculate or assume. All of us could then meaningfully comment on the facts we see, and then we could meaningfully discuss the implications of that reality.

This is why our Charter case is so very important.

If I was still able to get abortion information through freedom of information requests (based on OHIP billings), I would be able to tell you AND the pro-abortions the following facts about abortions in Ontario:

• How many abortions are done in doctor's offices
• How many medical abortions there are
• How many fetal reductions there are
• The total number of all clinic abortions
• Gestational age (weeks) of abortions done in clinics
• Gestational age (weeks) for the large "unknown" figure for hospital abortions
• Information on the method of abortion for clinic data
• The costs of abortion to the citizens of Ontario

And then I could meaningfully comment on the implications of these facts. Now I am only left guessing. And so is Joyce Arthur. 

A pro-abortion's many factual inaccuracies

Fundamentalist pro-abortion Joyce Arthur believes that Anna Nienhuis' article, Censoring abortion statistics contains "factual inaccurac[ies]".

So let's look at Arthur's own factual inaccuracies from her own comments.

Factual inaccuracy number 1: Arthur thinks that groups like We Need a Law think that:

"fetuses deserve more human rights than grown women." 

Not true. Pro-life people believe that fetuses deserve the same human rights as grown women. That's because human fetuses are human beings. Therefore they have human rights. Just like grown women.

Factual inaccuracy number 2: Arthur says:

"It's quite remarkable to hear anti-choice people complaining about the BC and Ontario FOI regulations when their own movement is ultimately responsible for those regulations in the first place - they were enacted to protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence."

Since the Ontario government has never stated--even after repeatedly being asked--their reasons for hiding all abortion information, how can Arthur say it is to "protect providers from being identified, targeted, harassed, and put at risk of anti-choice violence"? She can't. But that doesn't stop her from saying it. In fact in 2000, the Information and Privacy Commissioner actually ruled in favour of a pro-life group who was looking for abortion statistics but were denied the statistics from the Ministry of Health: the IPC found no evidence of violence:

"The information at issue in this appeal consists of general statistical information on a province-wide basis. This information cannot be linked to any individual facility or person involved in the provision of abortion services. I do not accept that the sequence of events, from disclosure to the harms outlined in sections 14(1)(e) and (i), could reasonably be expected to occur. While I accept the Ministry's submission, supported by ample evidence, that individuals and groups on both sides of the abortion debate have been subjected to threats, intimidation, and acts of violence, in my view, any link between disclosure and the harms in these sections is exaggerated. The evidence before me does not establish a reasonable expectation of endangerment to the life or physical safety of any person, or to the security of a building, vehicle or system or procedure established for the protection of items within the meaning of sections 14(1)(e) and (i) of the Act.  

This finding is in keeping with a fundamental purpose of the Act, as recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada:

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation, then, is to facilitate democracy. It does so in two related ways. It helps to ensure first, that citizens have the information required to participate meaningfully in the democratic process, and secondly, that politicians and bureaucrats remain accountable to the citizenry . . . Rights to state-held information are designed to improve the workings of government; to make it more effective, responsive and accountable . . . [Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance) (1997), 148 D.L.R. (4th) 385 at 403, per La Forest J. (dissenting on other grounds)]." 

In my view, to deny access to generalized, non-identifying statistics regarding an important public policy issue such as the provision of abortion services would have the effect of hindering citizens' ability to participate meaningfully in the democratic process and undermine the government's accountability to the public."

Factual inaccuracy number 3: Arthur says:

"Judging by statements in this article and the goals of the "We Weed a Law" group, we can also be sure that the information will be used to lobby for restrictive laws and the removal of pregnant women's rights, on the basis of attacking and shaming them for having abortions for the "wrong" reasons."

The original article talks about how the BC and Ontario governments hide abortion statistics. Maybe Arthur didn't read the article and that's why she doesn't know this? There is nothing in the article, or in weneedalaws' stated goals anywhere, that have ever stated or implied they wish to attack or shame women. Arthur has manufactured these claims all by herself.

Factual inaccuracy number 4: Arthur says:

"Women do not need to state a reason for abortion, it's nobody's business, and making that mandatory would be a violation of privacy (and would fuel anti-choice misogyny). Such information could be useful of course, but it can be gathered in a study where subjects volunteer to participate and ethical guidelines are in place."

Arthur is not the only pro-abortion who perpetuates the myth of "anti-choice misogyny". This myth falls under the category of, if you say something often enough, people will start to believe it is true.

Factual inaccuracy number 5: Arthur says:

"There's a major factual inaccuracy in this article that basically destroys its credibility...Some stats can also be obtained from provincial ministries of health, including abortions done in doctors' offices or in unfunded clinics in Ontario."

Ontario's Ministry of Health and Long Term Care does not provide any information about abortions done in doctors' offices in Ontario. In fact CIHI also doesn't report abortions done in doctor's offices.

Factual inaccuracy number 6: Arthur says:

"So the accusations of "censorship" are way overblown."

Considering that not only abortion statistics, but anything and everything relating to the word "abortion" in Ontario is completely excluded from freedom of information requests, Arthur's statement destroys her own credibility. In Ontario censorship on abortion information is very real indeed.

Factual inaccuracy number 7: Arthur says:

"Btw, you can be sure this data would NOT support anti-choice propaganda that abortion is dangerous or that women are having abortions right up to the moment of birth! Quite the opposite - so having this info would help our side, not theirs."

Arthur has nothing to back up any of her statement, again debunking any credibility she may have had. How do we know that abortion is not dangerous and how do we know that women aren't have abortions right up until birth, since none of this information is reported? The statistics we do have clearly show that in 2012 alone there were 62,178 abortions with no gestational ages at all. That means that all 62,178 of those abortions could very well be late term abortions. Since Arthur has no idea what these facts are how can she know it would help "her side"?

You can read more on Joyce Arthur's factual inaccuracies on abortion.

Pro-choice doctors want reporting of abortion services

Dear Health Minister Dr. Eric Hoskins,

I think you should read Monday's National Post, Censoring abortion statistics.

The article addresses what the Ontario Government is doing in Ontario: hiding abortion statistics:

"Despite abortion being a fully funded medical procedure, it is the only medical procedure where hospitals and clinics do not have to report statistics. This matters because transparency matters and, despite what governments and some media may tell you, Canadians are not united on the issue of abortion. In fact, up to 92 per cent of Canadians think there should be some restrictions on abortion, whether to eliminate late-term abortions, sex-selective abortions or other human rights violations."

According to (pro-choice) Canadian medical health researchers, Dr. Margaret A. Burnett and Dr. Jeanelle N. Sabourin,

“there is inconsistent and inadequate reporting of prevalence and complication rates of abortions in Canada, and improved reporting is necessary for quality assurance and to ensure safety.”
(M. A. Burnett and J. N. Sabourin, “A Review of Therapeutic Abortions and Related Areas of Concern in Canada,” Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 34, no. 6 (2012): 539.)

Clearly it's not only pro-life persons who care about abortion related information. Pro-choice doctors want it as well.

So why the censorship Mr. Hoskins?

Sincerely,
Patricia Maloney

Sticking to the facts and evidence on abortion statistics

I learned this week that Fake Person supports our Charter challenge with this tweet.

Makes sense, because we know officially reported abortion statistics in Canada aren't very useful. They are grossly under-reported (by at least 45% in Ontario alone). They aren't based on medical billings, but rather, on hospital records. So all abortions performed in doctor's offices are not reported, and it's not mandatory for clinics to report them, so many don't. Hence their inaccuracy.

So it's very important to be able to get accurate abortion information, hence our Charter challenge.

I write a great deal on this topic. I have published statistics based on doctor's billing records, information I have received from CIHI, from Stats Canada, etc. I'd say my track record for abortion statistics is pretty sound.

But this is what I don't understand. In this blog entry which was linked from her tweet above, Fake Person makes fun of me, and pro-lifers in general, using our charter challenge as a kick off point to launch into one of her typical ridiculing spree of us.

What is the point of that? If she agrees with what we are doing, what is the need to make fun of us?

Then she says this:

As a fan of facts and evidence, DJ! generally supports the release of information, provided the safety of patients and providers is guaranteed.

So she's a fan of "facts and evidence", but is worried about the safety of patients and providers? Since I never ask for private information, she can rest assured that this isn't the case. And that fact has been published numerous times by me, and by others.

Then she ends her piece by linking to Joyce Arthur's abortion stats, which are a compilation of CIHI's (self acknowledged) inaccurate stats.

I notice that in her chart, Arthur publishes a chart showing the gestational age of abortions from CIHI for years 2007 to 2013.

These numbers are for abortions done after 21 weeks, and range from 537 to 564 a year. What Arthur doesn't tell you, is that these numbers are based on only a small subset of all abortions, for which the gestational ages are known.

Arthur frequently concludes, that late term therefore are only performed in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare". But as I've shown on at least three occasions before, her "facts and evidence" on late-term abortions are wanting. As I detailed in the following posts below, there is no way Arthur can know if abortions are performed only in "exceptional circumstances" and are "extremely rare".

The actual late-term abortion numbers could very well be a lot higher.

For 2009 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/01/great-pro-abortion-urban-legend.html

For 2010 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2013/02/we-dont-know-what-were-talking-about.html
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2012/11/anti-abortion-laws-are-unjust-harmful.html

For 2012 CIHI statistics.
http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/2014/06/repeating-untruths-doesnt-make-them-true.html

Sticking to the "facts and evidence" is a good thing. I intend to keep doing that.

Hiding abortion spending makes bad Economics Policy

I received this in an email yesterday from Ontario Conservative leader Tim Hudak.

Below his email you can read my response.

Friend,

I’m excited about the 2013 Policy Convention and I hope you are too. With a Masters in Economics, I tend to be the kind of guy who would go to conventions just for the pamphlets. As a politician I love the debates.

But this weekend’s convention is going to be something special.  It’s an opportunity for us to take our 14 Paths to Prosperity white papers and forge a platform. I want to commend our PC MPPs, the PACs and our PC team who worked hard to produce these papers full of bold conservative ideas to get our province back on track.

They’ve been a big success. In the past year since the launch of our white papers, we’ve had over 56,000 downloads. Across our province people are talking about our roadmaps to a stronger, prosperous Ontario – that spends within its means and is a leader in job creation.

As conservatives we believe in smaller government, respect for taxpayers and freedom of choice. We’ve put forward hundreds of ideas for a government that focuses on getting the big things right.  But we can't campaign on 200 pages of policy. So we need to hone that into a winning conservative platform to take to voters. One that shows them our optimistic conservative vision for a better Ontario.

I encourage you to sign up for the policy sessions and give our MPPs your view on what works and what doesn’t. We want to hear what you think. How do we reach voters in their hearts and minds with clear, concise, strong language that shows the PC Party is on their side?

For the past two years, PACs have been meeting to prepare for this weekend’s policy discussions and votes. This is your chance to have your vote on our policy resolutions using hand-held voting machines and create the launching pad to a winning election campaign.

Our campaign platform will be forged in those halls of the convention centre in London. This weekend we will make history, we will build the foundation for the next PC government. We will all look back on this weekend and say this was the beginning – this was the start of Ontario’s comeback.

Sincerely,

Tim Hudak,
Leader, Ontario PC Party

--------------------

Dear Mr. Hudak,

Since you have a Masters in Economics, surely you understand that the $30-$50 million we spend every year on abortions in Ontario isn't very good value for money. That's tens of thousands of killed potential contributors to the Ontario economy who never get to be born. And from here on in, we won't even know how much we are spending on these abortions because the Liberal government is hiding this information from us.

What kind of policy will your party implement to deal with this, or will you continue to remain silent on the whole debacle? You have been completely silent on the subject so far, so I must ask myself, do you even care?

White papers are wonderful, but they don't make up for your condoning of this trampling of our rights to access information, which allows us to keep our politicians accountable to the people in how they spend our hard earned tax dollars.

Your speaking out on this, would indeed make it an exciting weekend.

Sincerely,

Patricia Maloney
Run with Life Blog

Trying to meet with my MPP

On August 25, I wrote to my MPP Madeleine Meilleur. I asked her about the recent FOI changes to FIPPA. I asked her two questions.

1) What rationale did the government have for excluding abortion services from FIPPA?

2) 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?

Five days later I still had received no response. So I followed up with another email. Then I waited another six days. Still no response.

Yesterday I called her office and asked when I could expect a reply to my email. I was told that they had sent it to the Minister's office and were waiting for the Minister to respond, and that could take two to three weeks longer.

I said okay then, I'd like to meet with Ms. Meilleur. Long pause. Then the assistant said, well don't you want to wait for the Minister's response first? I said, well no, since I wrote my letter to the MPP, and not to the Minister, that I wanted to know what my MPP thought about this change. The assistant said she would get the scheduling person to call me back. Nobody called me back.

Just before noon today I called her office again, and asked to speak to the scheduling clerk. When she finally got on the line, she said I couldn't have an appointment until October. I said, that was an awful long time for a constituent to wait for an appointment to meet with their MPP. She said that Ms. Meilleur only meets with constituents on Fridays (she is at Queen's Park the rest of the week). Fine. So I asked for an appointment in October. She didn't want to give me a firm appointment date. When I insisted on one, she finally relented and gave me one on October 11. But she said the appointment was only tentative.

Remind me again. Who do our MPPs work for?

(I'll let you know how my appointment goes. Assuming it actually happens.)   

Ontario's information commissioner has a good idea

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

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

She says:

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

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

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

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

Access to information and democracy

Robyn Urback: Ontario’s prohibition on access to abortion data will finally be challenged in court

As I've said many times. This case is about democracy. Robyn Urback from the National Post agrees with me.

Urback says:

There are other mechanisms in place that muddle our conception of abortion rates in the Ontario, including a tendency for some clinics to underreport (or not report at all) procedures to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. But that tendency does not represent a democratic affront in the same way the FIPPA amendment does. The limitation on access to abortion information should rile the sensibilities of all Ontarians, regardless of where their personal opinions lie. I don’t necessarily agree with Maloney’s views on abortion, but I do certainly hope she wins her day in court. 

Press Release

For Immediate Release

Blogger Takes Ontario Government to Court over Suppression of Information

OTTAWA , July 18, 2013– “In January 2012, the Ontario Liberal government amended its freedom of information law to exempt any abortion-related data from Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. As a blogger and a member of the new media, I’m taking on the government and challenging them over this undemocratic move. Tax-payers should know how their tax dollars are being spent,” explains Patricia Maloney.

By means of Bill 122, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, the Ontario government amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) to restrict data relating to the “provision of abortion services” from the public. There is no recorded debate in Hansard of this amendment, and it did not come to the public’s attention until after the provision came into effect and Maloney exposed it.

Maloney, the author behind the blog Run with Life, discovered the amendment when the Ministry of Health responded to an FOI request she made in March 2012. After breaking the story on her blog, the amendment caught the attention of the national media. Among others, Margaret Somerville covered it for the Calgary Herald and Barbara Kay wrote about it in the National Post.

“I’m not interested in patient or physician names, or the identification of hospitals. I respect the dual purposes of freedom of information laws; to ensure government accountability by providing information to taxpayers while ensuring the privacy of Canadian citizens. But data relating to provincial trends and rates of a publicly funded medical procedure are fair game,” elaborates Maloney. “The government has not restricted this type of generalized data for any other medical procedure. This amendment is without precedent or justification.”

“And without this data, how will we know if safe-sex campaigns are effective? Or the sex-education program that Premier Kathleen Wynne has promised to introduce?” Maloney asks. “Or if there is a sudden spike in tween or teen abortions? This is an important healthcare issue. And now the public is running blind on a government expenditure previously identified as costing as much as 30 to 50 million dollars each year. ”

In March 2013, the Ministry of Health denied Maloney’s FOI request. Maloney retained constitutional lawyer Albertos Polizogopoulos, and appealed the decision to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC). The IPC upheld the Ministry’s decision stating that the new section to the FIPPA was clear in its exclusion of documents relating to the provision of abortion services. Maloney is now seeking a reconsideration of the IPC’s Order (by the IPC) and a Judicial Review of the Order (by the Ontario Divisional Court).

“As a blogger, Ms. Maloney benefits from the freedom of expression and freedom of the press guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” explains Polizogopoulos. “The Charter protects her right to comment on matters of public interest. The allocation of taxpayer funds for a medical procedure which remains the source of much controversy is certainly a matter of public interest and the suppression of that information cannot be justified in law.”

-30-

Maloney’s counsel, Albertos Polizogopoulos, is available for comment and interviews. He can be reached at 613-241-2701. For more information on this case, the amendment to FIPPA and additional news coverage, please visit Maloney’s blog at http://run-with-life.blogspot.ca/p/blog-page.html.