Dear Kathleen - Does this mean you will stop hiding abortion information?

Received this from Ontario's "Open Government initiative":

"Almost 800 votes were received from ideas submitted as part of our recent Open Government Consultation. We’ve tallied the votes and are excited to share the top-voted ideas in each category.

Category	Top-Voted Idea
Transparency	Adopt the international Open Data Charter and its 6 principles for all Ontario ministry and provincial agency data.
Accountability	Implement all of the recommendations made by the Open Government Engagement Team.
Public Participation	Create a way for constituents to communicate with their MPPs online, in order to be included in the decision-making process, such as through surveys of their views on what works best in each riding.
Technology Innovation	Create a dashboard to provide citizens with information about key government outcomes, metrics and initiatives.

Here is a ranked list of all your favourite ideas. 

Remember, the top ideas will be assessed during in-person and online workshops.  So register today to join civil society organizations, public servants and passionate members of your community to help us identify meaningful Open Government Commitments that can be implemented in 2017.

Workshops will be taking place on the following dates:

October 24 – Toronto – Ontario Trade Centre, 250 Yonge St. – 3:30 – 6:00 pm

October 25 – Online – Open ON Forum – 12:00 pm – 2:30 pm

October 26 – Ottawa – University of Ottawa – 3- 5:30 pm

(Full details will be sent out to those who register for the sessions)

Space is limited, so click on the session that works for you and let us know which workshop you want to attend.  Deadline to RSVP is Friday, October 21. Refreshments will be served.

Can’t make these sessions and really want to participate? Email us at Opengov@ontario.caand we will work something out.

Thank you in advance for your participation in this important initiative. 

Open Government Office"

Notice the top voted idea, is Transparency: "Adopt the international Open Data Charter and its 6 principles for all Ontario ministry and provincial agency data."

And the very first principle of this idea is "Open by default":

1. "We recognize that the term “government data” includes, but is not limited to, data held by national, regional, local, and city governments, international governmental bodies, and other types of institutions in the wider public sector. The term government data could also apply to data created for governments by external organizations, and data of significant benefit to the public that is held by external organizations and related to government programs and services (e.g. data on extractives entities, data on transportation infrastructure, etc.).
2. We recognize that free access to, and subsequent use of, government data is of significant value to society and the economy, and that government data should, therefore, be open by default.
3. We acknowledge the need to promote the global development and adoption of resources, standards, and policies for the creation, use, exchange, and harmonization of open data.
4. We recognize that open data can only be unlocked when citizens are confident that open data will not compromise their right to privacy, and that citizens have the right to influence the collection and use of their own personal data or of data generated as a result of their interactions with governments.
5. We will:
   a. Develop and adopt policies and practices to ensure that all government data is made open by default, as outlined in this Charter, while recognizing that there are legitimate reasons why some data cannot be released;
   b. Provide clear justifications as to why certain data cannot be released;
   c. Establish a culture of openness, not only through legislative and policy measures, but also with the help of training and awareness programs, tools, guidelines, and communication strategies designed to make government, civil society, and private sector representatives aware of the benefits of open data;
   d. Develop the leadership, management, oversight, performance incentives, and internal communication policies necessary to enable this transition to a culture of openness in all government departments and agencies, including official statistics organizations;
   e. Observe domestic laws and internationally recognized standards, in particular those pertaining to security, privacy, confidentiality, and intellectual property. Where relevant legislation or regulations do not exist or are out of date, they will be created and/or updated; and
   f. In accordance with privacy legislation and standards, anonymize data prior to its publication, ensuring that sensitive, personally-identifiable data is removed."

If this is what Ontario citizens want, I guess it means Kathleen Wynne and her secretive Liberal government will overturn their hiding of abortions information?

Kathleen Wynne still pretending "open government"

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 11

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 10

"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." Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, 2000

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 9

“Information sharing should not be impeded because of excessive classification rules …. we must work to extinguish the belief that those who collect information own it.” -- William P. Crowell, Markle Task Force on National Security in The Information Age, testifying before the House Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk Assessment, 8 Nov. 2005

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 8

"After I had been confirmed as federal Information Commissioner, I met with the former Commissioner, John Grace, to get his advice.  One thing he said struck me in particular; he said that in his seven years as Privacy Commissioner and eight years as Information Commissioner (a total of 15 years spent reviewing the records which government wanted to withhold from Canadians) he hadn't seen a really good secret.  My experience is much the same over the first year of my term.  For the most part, officials love secrecy because it is a tool of power and control, not because the information they hold is particularly sensitive by nature." 

John Reid, 1999

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 7

"Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety." Woodrow Wilson"

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 6

"The overarching purpose of access to information legislation … 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." - Gerard LaForest, former Supreme Court of Canada Justice, in Dagg vs. Canada (1997)

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 5

"Government ought to be all outside and no inside. . . . Everybody knows that corruption thrives in secret places, and avoids public places, and we believe it a fair presumption that secrecy means impropriety." Woodrow Wilson

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 4

"I believe that a guarantee of public access to government  information is indispensable in the long run for any democratic society.... if officials make public only what they want citizens to know, then publicity becomes a sham and accountability meaningless." - Sissela Bok, Swedish philosopher, 1982

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 3

"A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both." - James Madison, 1832

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 2

"Secrecy and a free, democratic government don't mix." Pres. Harry Truman

Dear Kathleen Wynne - Freedom of Information Quote 1

"Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show it can bear discussion and publicity" - Lord Acton

Why the Ontario Government had to hide abortion statistics

"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." 
                                   Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, 2000

I think I've finally figured out why the Ontario government refuses to answer my questions about why they hide abortion information. It is because Kathleen Wynne et al cannot use the reason that not releasing the information is to protect the safety of a person or building. That was the argument the Ministry of Health used in 2000. And the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner didn't buy it.

So this time around Kathleen and friends simply changed the law to exclude abortion information completely from the prying eyes of nosy citizens. And while the opposition Conservatives snoozed, the Liberals quietly changed the law.

Pretty ingenious really.

Of course we know the government's real reason was pure politics: they don't like pesky pro-lifers asking them about abortion.

You see, in 2000, the Ontario Ministry of Health tried to withhold information when a (presumably pro-life) group requested abortion billings through a Freedom of Information request. The group asked for:

"the number of therapeutic abortions billed to OHIP in each of the years 1993 to 1997"

The Ministry refused to release the information. It defended its actions on the grounds that pro-lifers are violent:

"The Ministry submits: [B]ased on past and continuing events, there is ample evidence to support a reasonable expectation that disclosure of the requested information could endanger the life or physical safety of various individuals as well as endangering the security of the facilities where abortions are performed, and, in the course of violent demonstrations, the security of public buildings such as the Queen's Park legislative or other government buildings. 

Harassment has been, and remains, a reality in Ontario for those involved in the abortion debate from a Pro Choice perspective [notice the bias here against pro-lifers. Because no, no, no, pro-choicers are never violent]. Since 1991, this harassment of patients, providers, staff and their family members and neighbours by Pro Life activists has, in some instances, escalated into violence...

...The context in which these and other violent events have occurred is one liable to be fed by the slightest provocation. Even data reflecting merely the total number of abortions performed in Ontario on an annual basis, or the total number of providers performing them, is at risk of being manipulated and presented to the public in the most inflammatory way possible. 

The ministry is not suggesting that the appellant may manipulate the data in this way. We are merely pointing to the realistic conclusion that a disclosure to the world@ (see Order M-96 and others), by whatever means, is much more than hypothetical in the circumstances of this Appeal. It cannot be ignored that the appellant is a member of the media, from whom wide public circulation of the requested information can be expected. The eventual recipients of the information would doubtless include many individuals and groups on both sides of the abortion debate, a number of whom may elect to employ acts of harassment, vandalism and/or physical violence against persons with whom they disagree or of whose behaviour they deeply disapprove. This is why disclosure of the particular records in this Appeal, unlike those at issue in Order P-1545, would alter the current situation in a way sufficient to raise the reasonable expectation of the harms in clause 14(1)(e) and (i).  

But the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner did not agree with the Ministry's arguments in its decision, and ordered the Ministry to release the abortion information:

"Pursuant to a request under a freedom of information statute, the Supreme Court of Illinois in Family Life League v. Department of Public Aid, 112 Ill. 2d 449 (1986) ordered disclosure of (among other information) the numbers of abortions performed by providers, rejecting arguments that disclosure would lead to threats and harassment. 

Like the B.C. and Ontario cases, the U.S. authorities suggest that generalized statistical data regarding abortion services should be accessible under freedom of information legislation. 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 rounds)]. "

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." (Emphasis added)

As we know from my own attempts to get abortion information, we have never been given a reason why Ontario government changed the law. Of course they could never say it is because of violence, because the IPC already ruled against that argument in 2000.

The government could never use that argument again, because clearly they would be overruled.

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

Ontario Civil Liberties Association supports our freedom of expression rights

Ontario Civil Liberties Association supports our freedom of expression rights: OCLA position paper on institutional bias against pro-life campaigners in Ontario

"The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is opposed to the evident statutory and institutional bias that exists in Ontario against the free-expression rights of pro-life campaigners.... 

Regarding the said unconstitutional statute, Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act contains a section (s. 65(5.7)) which explicitly excludes all information about abortions, including any statistical data and charts, from any access. This means that there is no right whatsoever in Ontario for any individual or association to access government information “relating to the provision of abortion services” [2]. 

The statutory exclusion was not justified during parliamentary discussion (members were silent on the exclusion), is contrary to the principle of transparency and accountability in a free and democratic society, and is a violation of Canada’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [3]. 

The exclusion effectively prohibits expression on the excluded records, and thereby violates the Charter right to free expression of the requesters of the information [4]. 

The OCLA seeks to raise the concern that there is palpable institutional bias against pro-life advocates in Ontario and that this is harmful to society and substantively unjust towards members of the community [5]."

More here:
Civli liberties association says withholding abortion stats an affront to democracy

What is Kathleen Wynne's hidden agenda?

We actually have a Canadian politician speaking out against the Kathleen Wynne's Liberals decision to hide all abortion statistics. Rod Taylor from the Christian Heritage Party:

"When governments try to cover up facts and statistics, it usually sends a signal that they are hiding something they are ashamed of, something that would prove embarrassing or hard to explain to voters and taxpayers. When they cover up the cover-up, that signal gets even louder."

Seems about right.

So exactly what is Kathleen Wynne trying to hide from Ontarians? Are abortion rates doubling? Are they tripling? If she had nothing to hide there would be no need to do this. What is she covering up from us?

Must be pretty awful or she wouldn't have to hide it.

Ontario: 18,330 abortions done in doctors offices in 2010

Wendy Norman grossly underestimates the number of abortions done in Ontario each year. She says it's about 6,000. In 2010 there were actually over three times that many abortions done in Ontario in physician's offices.

That's a whopping 18,330 abortions performed in doctor's offices in that one year alone.

But don't expect to find out how many abortions are being done in doctor's offices in Ontario this year. Because you won't. Not since the Ontario government, under Kathleen Wynne's pro-abortion agenda, continues to make sure that all abortions performed in Ontario are of the top secret variety.

Below see my chart that I published in 2011. These numbers are based on doctor's OHIP billings. In fact, of all those abortions done in doctor's offices, not one of them was reported by CIHI (CIHI doesn't report on abortions done in private physician's offices).

2010 is the only year we will ever see those numbers.

We shouldn't have to pay for what is hidden

From today's National Post

"That damage [that the Liberal government is in no particular hurry to fix the fiscal mess in Ontario]— which will total almost $300-billion in accumulated provincial debt by the time the books are projected to be balanced — is substantial. Even if there are only smooth economic waters ahead for years to come, Ontario will struggle to compete while weighed down by that millstone. We hope that the province will one day have a government that realizes the enormity of this problem. We suspect it will have to wait at least four more years to get it."

For starters, why don't the Liberals defund abortion? How much money do we spend on abortion in Ontario you ask? Well we still don't know of course.

We do know that the Liberals could have spent as much at $70 million in 2010 on abortion, the last year that we have fairly decent statistics for.

After 2011, it's anyone's guess as to what we spend. Probably a lot more.

As long as the Ontario Liberals continue to hide all abortion related information, we won't know what we're spending.

If the Liberals want to hide that information then we shouldn't have to pay for it.

Paying for abortions - why?

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