Nearly everyone who wrote to the Prime Minister regarding Roxanne’s Law, supported the bill. Only a tiny number who wrote, were actually against the bill.
In December 2012, I sent an Access to Information request to the Privy Council Office (PCO) looking for information on MP Rod Bruinooge’s Bill C-510.
I asked for: “all information relating to Bill C-510 including briefing notes, talking points, reports, emails, letters, and any other documents that reference bill C-510”.
The package I finally received contained 713 pages. Access to Information requests are never very quick and almost never take the legislated 30 days. This request took eight months to be received in its entirety.
Pages 1-4 were excluded because of “cabinet confidences”.
Pages 5-59 contained a complete list of “Senate Government Bills” and one entry identified Bill C-510, which is why the pages were included.
Pages 60-125 were all withheld, also because of cabinet confidences.
Pages 126-713 contained letters and emails from members of the public regarding their support or non-support for the bill, along with the PCO’s responses. All responses were identical and all personal information was blacked out.
There were three organizations (The Catholic Women’s League, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and Priests for Life Canada) and 423 letters from individuals, all who supported the bill. The Catholic Women’s League stated that they were writing on behalf of 106 of its members.
That’s at least 531 shows of support for the bill (e.g. 423 individuals, plus 106 individuals from one organization, and the other two organizations. I don’t know how many individuals belonged to the other two organizations).
There were a total of 17 letters written from individuals, who were not in support of the bill.
In other words, 97% of people who wrote to the Prime Minister regarding Roxanne’s Law, supported the bill and 3% of those who wrote to the Prime Minister, did not support the bill.
Clearly Parliament is out of step with the Canadian Public.
One “pro-choice” person wrote this letter to the Prime Minister:
“Thank you for supporting the Canadian public in encouraging your members to vote against Roxanne’s Law. I am not normally a supporter of the Conservative Party, but I believe that you are finally listening to the voices of Canadian women on this issue. Well done Mr. Harper.”
The irony of this letter of course, is that Mr. Harper did not in fact, listen to the voices of Canadian women on this issue.
And what was in those 69 pages I couldn’t see? Who knows? I could complain to the Information Commissioner but that would be pointless. Her office would not be able to review those pages either, as it has no authority to see the content of information excluded because of cabinet confidences.
It shouldn’t be this way. At the very least, the Information Commissioner should have the power to view “cabinet confidences” and rule for herself whether or not they should be legitimately excluded from the public’s view. She cannot. And remember that this wasn’t even a government bill. So why did the PCO invoke cabinet confidence anyway?
Look at what the Department of Justice wrote in a document called Strengthening the Access to Information Act:
“A statutory amendment could be enacted to grant the Information Commissioner a limited right of review of the issuance of certificates by the Clerk of the Privy Council, therefore ensuring the Information Commissioner’s review of the Cabinet confidence exclusion.”
This is a golden opportunity for an MP to introduce a private member’s bill to table such an amendment. One wouldn’t even have to be pro-life to support it. This would be about effective oversight to increase government accountability and transparency. It would get all party support.
(For more from Pat Maloney please visit her website Run with Life)
*Please note the correction from 99.7% to 97% (people who wrote in to the PMO in support of Roxanne’s Law)
]]>
As of January 1, 2012 the Ontario government has been hiding all records relating to the provision of abortion services. Abortion is fully funded by tax-payers and the residents of Ontario have a right to know how much money is being spent on abortion, how often abortions are committed, what complications arise from the abortion procedure, and at what ages pre-born children are being aborted.
To send an email to your MPP click here.
In order to formulate good public policy all relevant information is necessary. In March 2012 Ms. Patricia Maloney, an Ottawa pro-life blogger with Run With Life submitted a Freedom of Information request with the Ministry of Health and it was denied. She is not satisfied with this answer and neither should you!
Ms. Maloney has appealed this decision and is now seeking a Judicial Review of the Order by the Ontario Divisional Court.
You can help her and all residents of Ontario by sending the following email to your MPP. It will be cc’d to Premier Kathleen Wynne and Minister of Health Deborah Matthews.
Click here to send the customizable email right away!
Dear,
I think you will agree with me that the only way to build sound public policy is by ensuring all relevant information has been researched and considered. Considering this, I am concerned about missing information when it comes to important policy regarding women’s health during pregnancy.
In a recent edition of the National Post I read about a lawsuit filed against the Ontario Provincial Government by Patricia Maloney, an Ottawa area blogger. I share Ms. Maloney’s concern about the hiding of abortion related data and question the decision to amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
As Ms. Maloney says:
“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.”
Honourable member, with all due respect, Ms. Maloney makes a valid point and it is baffling as to why the government would hide statistics which are imperative to enacting good policy. I encourage you to do all you can to correct this situation by complying with Ms. Maloney’s request as well as removing the appropriate amendment from Bill 122 which is preventing proper access to this information.
Sincerely,
]]>