We know that censorship is the new weapon of choice for those intent on preventing Canadians from knowing the truth about abortion. This decision is a huge victory for us and ensures that we can more effectively work to advance protections for pre-born children!

ARPA Canada, the parent organization of We Need a Law has put a lot of resources into this case. In fact, it was one of the reasons we went on the STOP CENSORSHIP tour earlier this year.

A quick recap:
In January 2012, the Government of Ontario amended the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) by adding Section 65 (5.7) which reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” In 2015, together with Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down this censorship provision.

The case was heard on February 1, 2017 where the applicants asked Mr. Justice Marc Labrosse to rule that Section 65(5.7) of the FIPPA was unconstitutional because it censored the residents of Ontario, indeed all Canadians, from having access to meaningful abortion related information.

From ARPA’s press release earlier today:
ARPA is very pleased that Justice Labrosse came to this conclusion. “This is a huge victory for freedom of expression,” said André Schutten, ARPA Canada’s director of law and policy. “It’s historic. There has never been a decision granting access to information from the executive branch based on the freedom of expression provision of the Charter. All disclosure orders to date have been made on a statutory rather than constitutional basis. Abortion is a matter of public importance and the courts have long recognized this. Abortion is also a recognized political issue, and political expression is at the core of protected speech under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.”

“This decision strengthens democracy,” continued Schutten. “The question at the heart of this case was whether governments can avoid accountability on a particular matter simply by excluding information related to that matter from the access to information law. We are very pleased that the court has struck this censorship provision down.”

The hard work of ARPA lawyers John Sikkema, André Schutten as well as outside counsel Albertos Polizogopoulos is to be commended! We also express deep appreciation for the perseverance and dedication of Ms. Maloney. Thanks Pat!

We are not sure how the Government of Ontario will respond to this decision. The court has given them a year to allow for the adoption of remedial legislation. Suffice to say, this case was about transparency and democracy. In our view, the actions of a democratic government and the money it spends should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter.

But more importantly, this case is about justice. It is a scientific fact that each abortion takes the life of a human being. Even if many wish to condone or even celebrate this, nobody can deny that a human life has been taken. The way to deal with this is not to censor all abortion-related information. Rather it is to allow the truth to be known, and then to engage in meaningful public discourse about how to address the over 100,000 abortions that occur in Canada every year. There must be documentation, recognition and, hopefully one day, public acknowledgement of the injustice of abortion and regulations put in place to limit it.

We hope you will join us in remaining diligent in ensuring that the state cannot simply hide information they feel is not in their political interest to discuss.

In 2012 the Government of Ontario quietly slipped in an amendment to FIPPA (Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act) that reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” This amendment was embedded in an omnibus bill – an omnibus bill is one that covers a large number of diverse and unrelated topics – and was never debated in the Legislature. It was only discovered after Pat Maloney, an Ottawa area pro-life blogger, had a Freedom of Information (FOI) request denied on the basis of the recently enacted amendment.

After careful consideration, and I emphasize ‘careful’ as we should never take it lightly when we file a lawsuit against the government, we made the decision to partner with Pat Maloney in requesting a judge to review the constitutionality of the amendment to FIPPA.

But why this fixation with statistics and freedom of information? This is a good question to ask; especially considering abortion is wrong no matter how many or for what reasons they occur.

We Need a Law is devoted to promoting grassroots political action. We know that for us to expect changes in public policy we will need to have strong enough public opinion. That is why we strive to give all citizens of Canada the tools they need to become politically engaged so they can be a voice for truth, justice, freedom, and human rights. But in order to do that properly, we need accurate information. Freedom of information is protected by the Charter’s freedom of expression guarantee because without access to government information, a citizen cannot meaningfully discuss, debate, scrutinize or make informed opinions on matters of public policy.

Statistics matter because, in addition to knowing how many pre-born children are aborted, they show how abortion really impacts women. How can we know abortion is safe if the government refuses to let the residents of Ontario know anything that pertains to the procedure? How many physical complications were there in relation to abortion?  How would anyone know whether or not women have been hurt psychologically in the process?

The reality is that without access to the statistics, no one knows the answers to these questions and this presents an incredible challenge in proposing solutions. When the government withholds very important and relevant information on abortion, women cannot make informed decisions, and advocacy organizations cannot carry out their missions.

If you live in Ontario and have not yet done so we ask that you take a few moments to send this email to your MPP. Ask them to repeal Section 65 (5.7) because censoring abortion data is no way to deal with an injustice that affects over 100,000 lives every year in Canada.

While George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was a warning, it has become a ‘how-to’ manual of sorts for cultural Marxists. Telling the truth requires knowing the facts and being free to talk about them openly.

The STOP CENSORSHIP TOUR will be hosting events throughout Ontario and you are invited to learn about how the Government of Ontario is actively hiding abortion statistics in order to frustrate the ongoing work of helping women and advancing pre-born human rights.

This event is free to attend and will feature John Sikkema, a lawyer with ARPA (Association for Reformed Political Action) Canada and Mike Schouten, Director of WeNeedaLAW.ca. The event will also feature Pat Maloney, a pro-life blogger from Ottawa who has been fighting for access to abortion data in Ontario.

There will be a financial appeal to support the ongoing efforts of WeNeedaLAW.ca.

Check below for a full listing of events, head to our Facebook events page for more details and to RSVP, or email Cassy Knegt at cassy@test.weneedalaw.ca for more information.

The British Columbia legislature has appointed a Special Committee to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) in B.C. This Committee is accepting submissions from anyone who would like to speak up, until January 29, 2016.  We have filed an official submission asking the Committee to recommend ending the censorship of abortion-related information that the B.C. FIPPA currently allows. 

Every dollar spent by government should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter. For this reason, we support the pressure on the Liberals regarding their deletion of sensitive emails, and we also support the criticism of their decision to stop tracking the numbers of people being turned away at homeless shelters, a decision that makes it near-impossible for policy makers to properly assess and address needs in our communities.  These types of government actions, however, are not new. The censorship of what should be public information began already in 2001, when a Bill was quickly and quietly passed by the B.C. NDP, blocking access to information regarding abortions in the province. 

David Eby, the MLA for Vancouver-Point Grey, has been particularly relentless in pointing to the unjust muzzling of Freedom of Information, and the accountability a government must be held to in its allocation and use of public funds. While understandable that the Opposition would take such an approach, we find Mr. Eby and the NDP’s response rich with hypocrisy, as this same party had no problem with the muzzling of statistics when they were in power.  

In 2001, as one of their last acts in government, the NDP introduced Bill 21, an Act requiring hospitals to perform abortions while at the same time allowing them to keep the resulting statistics secret. The legislation was a striking, unprecedented breach of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. In fact, the Information and Privacy Commissioner at that time, David Loukedelis, wrote a letter to deputy premier Joy MacPhail the very next day, informing her in no uncertain terms that Bill 21 unnecessarily limited public freedom to information collected by the government. Nevertheless, the NDP pushed ahead with this blatant act of censorship.

There is no excuse for the Liberals to delete information that the public has a right to know. But make no mistake, it was the NDP’s censorship bill which was the first law to restrict specific public information and exclude it from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.  The NDP took this step despite there having never been a case regarding abortion statistics where compromising personal data was or could have been released. This purely ideological decision ensured that the abortion debate in British Columbia and, by default, Canada, would be stifled.  It is no longer possible to state with accuracy what type of abortions are being used, which procedures carry higher risks or have more complications, the reasons women choose abortion, the gestational age at abortion, or even the simplest statistic: how many occur each year? 

We often hear that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Well, it’s already legal throughout the entire pregnancy and we know that abortion advocates have long parted with caring about how rare it is.  By refusing to let the residents of British Columbia know anything that pertains to the procedure, we now don’t even know if it is safe. More importantly, how can policy makers and advocates know what situations are leading women to choose abortion, and how can these very real cries of desperation be answered with programs that are actually pro-woman? The reality is that, without the information, no one knows, and therefore nothing concrete can be done for those who may be feeling like their “choice” is no choice at all.  

It is ironic that the same party that sought to muzzle the debate on abortion by eliminating access to accurate statistics is the party now criticizing the Liberals for muzzling the debate on homelessness by eliminating access to statistics.  Even more ironic is that the spokesperson for the NDP is an “award-winning human rights lawyer”, who previously served as executive director for the BC Civil Liberties Association. Freedom of Information should be David Eby’s area of expertise, yet he has never spoken out against Bill 21, and it continues to stand in law over this province.

Holding the government accountable is the opposition’s role, and an important one. As such, the NDP is right to criticize government control over statistics. Provincial governments have a responsibility to ensure that the citizens who elect them have access to all the information needed to understand the use of taxpayer funds – whether regarding homelessness or health policy. No matter what your thoughts are on pre-born human rights or abortion, this form of censorship is contrary to everything an open and democratic society should embody.

Together with my co-applicants, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, we will argue that our Charter right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of the press, is violated by this Act.

Some information is routinely made public by the government, and some of it is not. In order to protect citizens’ rights to see information that isn’t publicly available (e.g., communications between government officials on how they came to a decision, or how much they spent on a particular project) we have access to information laws.

In Ontario, the purpose of this law, (called the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or FIPPA), is twofold. It protects citizens’ privacy. It also stipulates under what conditions information must and must not be made available to citizens.

Access to information requests are an extremely important mechanism to hold governments accountable to the electorate. As Pierre Trudeau once said:

“Democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate their government’s policy. To act otherwise is to give way to despotic secrecy.”

The media regularly makes Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to break stories on government spending, decision-making or other action.

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I also make FOI requests regularly and that I can’t do that anymore in Ontario. Because in 2012 the Ontario Government changed FIPPA to exclude one medical service from FOI requests, and one medical service only: abortion services. They added clause 65(5.7)

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

(I only ever ask for aggregate numbers, and never ask for personal information, like doctor’s or patent’s names.)

So I can’t comment anymore on doctor’s OHIP billings for abortion services.

I took the government to court, and after two and a half years, they released the two page document I was looking for. So I should be happy right? Wrong. Because they released the document outside the Act, I was not protected by the Act. It also means that although in theory I may still be able to obtain information on abortion, there is no guarantee of my obtaining such information. The government can arbitrarily refuse me.

It is far preferable that information be released through the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That’s because the government must follow its own rules in releasing information. But there are no rules for releasing abortion information outside the Act. And if they refuse to give me the information I am looking for, I have no recourse.

When information is subject to FIPPA, not only do I have recourse (for instance if I am refused information), but the act also offers guarantees of response rates (like 30 days), etc. And if information is not released within the required 30 days, they must tell me why there is a delay.

So the Act protects my rights. When information is released outside the Act, I am literally at the mercy of the government. They can just say “no”, with no explanation, since no reason is required. When information is refused inside the Act, I must be provided with an explanation as to why it was refused. For example, cabinet confidences, or legitimate privacy concerns.

Releasing information inside the Act, although far from perfect, does ensure a lot more accountability from the government, and more protection for me.

FIPPA ensures that the government is accountable to all of us, and that includes the media, with the information it holds on our behalf. This clause is a bad law and it must be struck down.

More information:

The ARPA Canada FIPPA challenge – FAQs

Our case

By Pat Maloney who blogs at Run With Life.

This article has been republished here with the author’s permission. 

Dozens of similar incidents have occurred in cities and universities across Canada in recent years: attempts by abortion advocates to use the law to silence those with whom they disagree. But it’s not only individual citizens or special interest groups engaged in this censorship. Governments are guilty of it too.

This week, our organization, the Association for Reformed Political Action (ARPA) Canada, together with blogger Patricia Maloney, filed a notice of application asking the Ontario Superior Court to strike down section 65(5.7) of Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (the FIPPA). This subsection violates freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press, all of which are guaranteed under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In January 2012 this section was added to the FIPPA in a bill purporting to extend the FIPPA to healthcare institutions. It reads: “This Act does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.” Note that one of the FIPPA’s purposes is to guarantee access to government information to maintain transparency and accountability. The second purpose is to protect private and personal information. Yet the addition of section 65(5.7) undermines both of these purposes and was never debated in the Legislature. Why did the Government of Ontario quietly slip in an amendment that hides generic, non-personal statistical information?

For her part, our co-applicant, Ms. Maloney authors the blog “Run with Life” and in that capacity regularly submits freedom of information requests (known as FOI requests) to the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. When told that her requests were now denied because of the new legislation, she appealed the decision three times, finally receiving the information late last year. The government released this information to her “outside of the FIPPA process” mere days before her day in court. But the bad law remained on the books.

While we cannot know why the government decided to release this information to Maloney days before appearing in court and after opposing her three appeals for two and half years, a reasonable assumption is that the government did not want this issue in front of a judge. Maloney and ARPA Canada however, believe this section of the FIPPA is unconstitutional and do want this before a judge.

Freedom of information is protected by the Charter’s freedom of expression guarantee because without access to government information, a citizen cannot meaningfully discuss, debate, scrutinize or make informed opinions on matters of public policy.

This case is about transparency and democracy. In our view, every action of a democratic government and every dollar spent should be open to scrutiny by the taxpayer and voter. On this point alone, people from all sides of the political spectrum should join forces with us.

Perhaps more importantly however, this case is about justice. Justice requires accountability. It is a scientific fact that each abortion takes the life of a human being. Each one requires documentation, recognition and, hopefully one day, public acknowledgement of the injustice of abortion.

We often hear that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. In Canada, the procedure is already legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy and happens at least 100,000 times a year. Most abortion advocates have stopped pretending to care about keeping abortion rare. But how can we know abortion is safe if the government refuses to let the residents of Ontario know anything pertaining to the procedure? How many physical complications were there in relation to abortion?  How would anyone know whether or not women have been hurt psychologically? The reality is that without access to the statistics, no one knows and nothing can be done. When government withholds very important and relevant information on abortion, women cannot make informed decisions.

Provincial governments – Ontario is not alone in this; British Columbia has a similar censorship provision – have a responsibility to ensure that the citizens who elect them have access to the information needed to make good decisions about health policy. No matter what your thoughts are on pre-born human rights, this form of censorship is contrary to everything an open and democratic society should stand for. Our citizens deserve better. Our taxpayers deserve better. And our women deserve better.

Mike Schouten is campaign director for WeNeedaLAW.ca. André Schutten is a lawyer with ARPA Canada.

In response to the Paris tragedy Rex Murphy wrote, “The great institutions of the West, the press and the universities, have been at best complicit and at worst cowardly when it comes up to defending freedom of speech — not from threats of Islamist fanatics with guns, but in much less demanding circumstances.”

That cowardly attitude manifested itself in a British Columbia courtroom this week.

At issue was the tense, and at times hostile relationship between a pro-life club, Youth Protecting Youth (YPY) and the University of Victoria. Some of YPY’s activities included engaging their fellow students on the topic of abortion and pre-born human rights. In short, using science and logic they challenged the dogma that allows for abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy. They didn’t have guns, only words. The result of YPY’s attempts at initiating what should be an intellectually stimulating conversation was that some students complained to university staff; they just couldn’t handle their pro-choice ideology being challenged so boldly. The university capitulated and in 2013 revoked YPY’s club privileges for a period of one year. Cameron Coté, who led the pro-life club during his time at the University of Victoria, went to the BC Supreme Court with a petition seeking clarification that the university’s treatment of YPY was inconsistent with the Charter rights of Canadians – mostly notably the freedom of expression.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson, who reviewed the petition, ruled that the Charter does not apply on university property and they are not free-speech zones. The decision to rule against Mr. Coté shows just how schizophrenic society has become. As one friend said to me, “Some judges just don’t get diversity and free speech. How autonomous from the Charter can a University be if TWU [Trinity Western University] isn’t allowed a law school because of the same Charter?”

Universities, which should be welcoming venues for young Canadians seeking to find their place in the moral fabric of society, are becoming the most intellectually sterile environments. Not only are ideas no longer debated freely and openly, but the students are taught that if you don’t agree with any particular idea you simply call on the authorities to shut that person(s) up. It is obvious there are a wide variety of opinions on pre-born human rights. But rather than simply muzzling everyone shouldn’t universities be encouraging vigorous debate?

The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is to be applauded for partnering with Mr. Coté in his legal action against the University of Victoria. Though staunchly in favour of abortion, they at least understand that people with differing views ought to be able to express themselves freely.

The clamping down of free speech is not surprising. Those who insist on the right to kill a pre-born child are having an increasingly hard time defending their views. Their last resort is to kill the conversation. And as long as we faithfully stand up for our pre-born neighbours, they won’t be able to.

Check out the rest of the comic on Pat’s blog.

ACTION ITEM FOR ONTARIO RESIDENTS: Use this SimpleMail to let your MPP know you are not pleased that abortion data is kept hidden.

Pat says in her most recent blog post:

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.”

We have a CALL TO ACTION for our supporters from Ontario! Take a moment to send this customizable letter to your MPP asking for the facts on abortion.