Three Times a Charm?

There you have it.  Three, count em, three Information and Privacy Commissioners for British Columbia have stated that the ban on access to information on abortion is wrong….with Commissioner Denham even stating that British Columbia is not meeting international standards.

Will the government listen?

“I agree with my predecessors that a mandatory exception based solely on the subject-matter of the record is a feature of outmoded access laws.  The current international standard for exceptions to disclosure is that all exceptions should be harms based. I would further agree that ss.22 of FIPPA is capable of protecting such information as would identify abortion service providers or patients or threaten their health or safety.” 

-Elizabeth Denham, Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia – November 8, 2011

“It is my view that, in general terms, an exception to the Act for a specific subject matter is unnecessary”

-Paul Fraser, QC, former Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia -Feb 16, 2010

My first concern is that the amendment fundamentally changes the nature of the FOI Act, by introducing a mandatory exception based soley on the subject-matter of a record. Such a subject-matter exception is a feature of outmoded, and rightly denigrated, access and privacy laws.

-David Loukidelis, former Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia  – March 30, 2001

BC not meeting “international standards” for FOI according to the Information & Privacy Commissioner

Wow! Here it is:

“I agree with my predecessors that a mandatory exception based solely on the subject-matter of the record is a feature of outmoded access laws.  The current international standard for exceptions to disclosure is that all exceptions should be harms based. I would further agree that ss.22 of FIPPA is capable of protecting such information as would identify abortion service providers or patients or threaten their health or safety.” 

-Elizabeth Denham, Information & Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia November 8, 2011

Here’s the letter.

For the benefit of those politicians not understanding English, “outmoded” is defined in the dictionary as: “unfashionable, dated, old-fashioned”.

Just sayin.

Another day another letter to the Information & Privacy Commissioner

Dear Ms. Denham:

I have been greatly encouraged by statements you have made, in a variety of settings, on the issue of access to information and the rights of citizens in a democracy.

Your letter of October 20, 2011 to the Honourable Dr. Margaret MacDiarmid Minister of Labour, Citizens’ Services  and Open Government, in which you stated:

 “It is vital for open and accountable government that, whatever the form of the entity, if it is carrying on public business, it should be subject to FIPPA.”

was indeed encouraging.

To that end I am attaching copies of two letters in which your predecessors addressed the glaring paradox of having an access to information law that takes away access to information on one public policy issue.

There is thus no public scrutiny, no public accountability and no public access to information on the issue of abortion.

Indeed, former Commissioner David Loukidelis stated:

Bill 21 Fundamentally Changes the FOI Act: My first concern is that the amendment fundamentally changes the nature of the FOI Act, by introducing a mandatory exception based soley on the subject-matter of a record. Such a subject-matter exception is a feature of outmoded, and rightly denigrated, access and privacy laws.

Bill 21 Is Not Necessary: The FOI Act as it stands – notably through ss.19 and 22 – has proved more than capable of protecting such information as would identify abortion providers or patients or threaten their health or safety. Of the almost 450 orders made under the FOI Act, less than half a dozen have involved records relating to abortion services. In no case has information been ordered disclosed that would identify or otherwise jeopardize abortion service providers, patients or other persons who are in any way associated with abortion services.

He adds:

 “While the Bill 21 amendment does not exclude abortion services information from coverage by the FOI Act, it essentially has the same effect.  With the exception of policies and global statistics, all information relating to that specific subject (the provision of abortion services) must not be disclosed. The only exception is that an individual may request information about abortion services that she has received.  Many legitimate issues of the accountability of public bodies for their use of public funds cannot, therefore,  be addressed through the right of access. Bill 21 simply excludes accountability by, for all intents and purposes, repealing the right of access in this area.”

Both David Loukidelis and Paul Fraser, QC, have made their views known on section 22.1 of the Act.
I was wondering where you stand on this topic?

BC’s abortion stats: screwing the rest of the country

The Canadian Institute for Health Information has finally, after almost 3 year, released abortion statistics for Canada for the year 2009.

Once again British Columbia is the laughingstock of Canada.

Why?  Well it seems the CIHI cannot publish “accurate” (whatever that means) abortion statistics for the entire nation, because, well, because the data for British Columbia is “incomplete”.

The reason?  Naturally, British Columbia’s “private” abortion clinics are under no obligation to report ANY of their statistics.  Not complication rates, ages of women, deaths, repeat abortion rates, under age abortion…nothing. Those 3-thousand or so “medical” abortions in BC?  No one even seems to know anything about them!

We will have more to say about this later….but I wonder what it will take to make British Columbia health officials to take the recording of health statistics, even from private clinics, a priority.

Until then, can you say “regulatory failure”?

A Great Hope…..

Our government is committed to openness, transparency and engaging with British Columbians. Simply put: we need to be open with the information people have a right to see and open to ideas they have a right to voice.
The amendments will take the work already underway and enshrine our commitments to openness and transparency into law.

By modernizing the Act, your government will enable citizens to have more seamless access to government services and create the conditions for greater engagement with other citizens.

-Speech from the Throne: The Honourable Steven L. Point, OBC, Lieutenant-Governor at the Opening of the Fourth Session,
Thirty-Ninth Parliament of the Province of British Columbia October 3, 2011

Minnesota releases detailed abortion stats – mass rioting occurs….Not!

Oooops.  Sorry.  Rioting occured but it was over something “important” like a Stanley Cup hockey game.

In other, serious news, the State of Minnesota released their annual report: “Report to the Legislature: Induced Abortions in Minnesota“. These stats are for the calendar year 2010.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information has NOT released their scheduled report on abortion statistics for all of Canada.  That report, due in the Spring of 2011, would have covered abortion reporting for 2009.

Since British Columbia hardly provides any statistics, the delay can’t possibly be because of an over abundance of data, now can it?

But health officials in Minnesota understand why abortion reporting is important:

Reports of induced abortion are not legal records and are not maintained permanently in the files of the State office of vital statistics. However, the data they provide are very important from both a demographic and a public health viewpoint. Data from reports of induced abortion provide unique information on the characteristics of women having induced abortions. Uniform annual data of such quality are nowhere else available. Medical and health information is provided to evaluate risks associated with induced abortion at various lengths of gestation and by the type of abortion procedure used. Information on the characteristics of the women is used to evaluate the impact that induced abortion has on the birth rate, teenage pregnancy, and out-of-wedlock births. Because these abortion data provide information necessary to promote and monitor health, it is important that the reports be completed carefully.

At any rate, remember that the release of detailed abortion statistics are forbidden in British Columbia. That information and data are currently censored.

Freedom of Information 101:

Note to those who are uncomfortable with our campaign:

It is unacceptable in our democratic society that there should be a restraint on the publication of information relating to government when the only vice of that information is that it enables the public to discuss, review and criticize government action.
-Commonwealth v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd & Ors (1980)

Imagine BC’s FOI Censorship Debate on Facebook…

Anti-HST Bill Tieleman supports FOI Censorship?

Oh say it isn’t so!  BC’s well-known “Anti-HST” Bill Tieleman has demanded we stop our campaign to rid our Province of the Freedom of Information Censorship law.

He also believes our tweets on this issue are “misleading”.

Tweets are headline grabbers…NDP Tieleman should know that…they point to an article or series of articles that if someone ACTUALLY took the time to read, they would see the correlation.

Also, for some strange reason NDP Tieleman thinks we should stop, no, he demands we stop our, as he calls them, “anti-choice attacks”.

Logic seems to elude Mr. Tieleman.  Is it really necessary to remind Mr. Tieleman that in a democracy, ALL issues can be discussed and debated?  The Freedom of Information is an important tool in a democracy for all citizens?

Do we have to remind Bill Tieleman the words that his comrade, Colin Gabelmann, considered the Father of BC FOI, uttered when BC’s FOI legislation was introduced, that the law would:  “…empower citizens so that they can fully exercise their democratic rights. The reality is that if government has information which is denied to citizens, it becomes extremely difficult to make informed judgments about government policy or to endeavour to influence public policy.”

Does Bill Tieleman think that democracy, and the right to debate issues, belong to him and him alone?  It is fine to fight against monetary issues such as the HST, fine to fight against choice on voting with the STV, but we can’t even ask for statistics on a legal medical procedure?

That’s an “anti-choice attack”?

How sad. But how NDPish. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?

Bother. Good old Bill needs a lesson in what FOI means in a democracy (as most socialists do from time to time):

‘‘the overarching purpose of access to information Legislation is to facilitate democracy. 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.’’
-Dagg v Canada (Minister of Finance) [1997]

But here’s a challenge Mr. Tieleman.  What are you going to do to stop us? We’re not going away.  In case you haven’t noticed, there is still a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and this is Canada, not the USSR.

Let Freedom reign. And FOI.

Coming soon to BC: UK Government loses abortion data bid

Ed. Note: Although we are not looking for stats on late-term abortions, there is a number of good arguments contained in this decision to make us hopeful:

Detailed statistics on the number of late abortions of “less than perfect” foetuses must be released, the High Court ruled yesterday, despite fears over the safety of the women and doctors involved.

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent 6:45AM BST 21 Apr 2011 The Telegraph

The decision will force the Government to publish individual figures on how many abortions are carried out after 24 weeks on foetuses with physical abnormalities, including some relatively minor problems such as a cleft palate or club foot.

Anti-abortion campaigners welcomed the decision last night, saying it was a step towards redressing the “outrageous” imbalance between the rights of the mother and the unborn child.

Family planning groups described it as “deeply worrying and unethical”, saying women could be identified by their publication and doctors could be “harassed”.

The hearing followed an Information Rights Tribunal, which in October 2009 decided that “sensitive” abortion statistics should be released to the Pro-Life Alliance, which had been pressing for them since 2005. The Department of Health took the matter to the High Court.

James Eadie QC, for the DoH, argued on Monday that publishing the figures could lead to “awful” consequences for patients.

But Mr Justice Cranston ruled that the tribunal had made no error in law in concluding that the risk of identification was “extremely remote” and dismissed the department’s bid. He also said the release of the material to the alliance was necessary to inform the public debate.

Abortion on “social grounds” is only allowed in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, but it is legal to abort a foetus right up to birth if there is a “substantial risk” of it being “seriously handicapped”.

The health department stopped publishing a full breakdown of figures for the previous year in 2003. The last set of statistics, for 2001, showed that a foetus was aborted after 24 weeks because it had a cleft palate, a defect surgeons can in most cases remedy.

The Rev Joanna Jepson, a Church of England curate who was born with an overhanging upper jaw, complained to police. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute, saying doctors had acted in good faith, but the case led the department to stop publishing detailed data.

UK MSM gets it: Publish abortion data

Great article in the UK on the issue of publishing abortion statistics. They seem to understand what the MSM and others in Canada do not.  Read and enjoy!

Health
Publish abortion data
Telegraph View: Abortion should be debated openly and with all relevant information freely available.

By Telegraph View 7:18AM BST 18 Apr 2011

Few issues give rise to greater ethical controversy than abortion, which is why it should be debated openly and with all relevant information freely available. Yet for some years now, the Department of Health has refused to provide data about the number of late abortions carried out because of disability. These statistics were first requested in connection with an abortion of a baby with a cleft palate. Campaigners, who included the Rev Joanna Jepson, who was herself born with a jaw defect, were anxious to discover how many terminations were conducted for disabilities that did not fall into the legal definition of “a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality”.

The Health Department refused to supply the statistics, claiming that the information was “sensitive, personal and private”. In particular, officials were worried that individual doctors or patients would be identified. However, when a request was made under the Freedom of Information Act, an independent tribunal said it was satisfied that the likelihood of a doctor being identified from the statistics alone “is so remote that disclosure of the disputed information would not be unwarranted”. The Health Department was ordered to publish the data but lodged an appeal instead. Eighteen months on and the High Court will today hear the latest stage of this unnecessarily costly and protracted legal action. What is the Health Department trying to hide? Anonymised statistics do not constitute personal data and those organisations who seek to prevent their publication by pretending they do are helping no one in this debate. Public interest in the circumstances of late abortion is legitimate and full transparency is required. We would urge the High Court to end the Government’s obduracy on this matter as soon as possible.

Abortion used as a political weapon?

“…that’s why it’s so troubling to see abortion used as a political weapon by a government in crisis.”

-NDP making political hay of abortion; [Final Edition] Michael Smyth, The Province. Vancouver, B.C.: Nov 3, 1998. pg. A.6

Another Former British Columbia NDP MLA on why Censor FOI

Evelyn Gillespie, quoted in Hansard on March 28, 2001, on the POLITICAL reason why entire legislation was enacted in British Columbia to stop the New Democratic Party’s political opponents:

“Information is a very potent tool. Information about abortion services, about the provision of abortion services, particular statistics, is a very potent tool in the hands of people who would wish to limit women’s access to choice.”

Statistics are a danger to the provision of abortion services?

You mean knowing how many complications from the abortion procedure at my local hospital directly “threatens” the status quo?

Just for fun, let’s change the wording of Gillespie’s speech…and see how folks would tolerate it:

“Information is a very potent tool. Information about logging, about the provision of logging, particular statistics, is a very potent tool in the hands of people who would wish to limit a logger’s access to forests.”

Or how about:

“Information is a very potent tool. Information about Port Alberni Union violence, about the provision of construction services, particular statistics, is a very potent tool in the hands of people who would wish to limit a trade worker’s access to their job site.”

Or my favorite:

“Information is a very potent tool. Information about day care services, about the provision of day care services, particular statistics, is a very potent tool in the hands of people who would wish to limit women’s access to day care.”

Somehow, somewhere, I cannot imagine the media or anyone else for that matter tolerating this slap in the face to the democratic process.

Do you?

Former BC NDP MLA on FOI Censorship Law

Former New Democratic MLA Jan Pullinger spilled the beans on the afternoon of Wednesday, March 28, 2001.  She commented in the Legislature on why the government introduced a law that included a lifetime ban on access to information on the public policy issue of abortion.

Pullinger stated:

“We came into government with a commitment to the women of this province to stop the anti-abortion, anti-choice movement and to restore women’s fundamental right to choose, and we have done that.”

Sounds slightly political?

Entire legislation introduced and passed primarily to stop your political opponents? Then it all adds up. The secret meetings. The media noticing the fascination the government has with one side of a public policy issue.  The full weight of the law struck to intimidate political opponents with a Criminal Harassment Unit – then embarrassed that it didn’t find the outcome you wanted.  The Attorney General of the Province submitting a false affidavit.

Make no doubt about it, Bill 21-2001 was a complete and utter abuse of the legislative process. After 10 years, it is time to see this mockery of the democratic process tossed into the dust bin of history, where it belongs.

Once again we are reminded on why legislation such as this must be fought:

‘‘the overarching purpose of access to information Legislation is to facilitate democracy. 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.’’ -Dagg v Canada (Minister of Finance) 1997

But the Government was never interested in democracy on this issue, was it?

Happy 10th Birthday BC FOI Censorship!

Wow, it seems like only yesterday Joy MacPhail introduced legislation that banned the release of information relating to abortion in the Province of British Columbia.

10 Years ago this week, in the dying days of the NDP regime, the Abortion Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 was introduced, effectively stamping out the ability to talk and debate abortion in this Province.

Darrell Evans, executive director of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (FIPA), a non-partisan lobby group whose efforts led to the passage of B.C.’s FOI law, stated:

“This draws an iron curtain across the subject of abortion….” He added: “It says, in effect, that abortion is no longer a proper subject for debate. Those who want to criticize abortion are now at a severe knowledge disadvantage.”

As has been documented here, The Information & Privacy Commissioner, David Loukidelis, wrote a letter slamming the move of the government. Paul Fraser, QC, the subsequent interim Commissioner agreed that no topic should be made off-limits.

10 years has come and gone.

As David Loukedelis stated:

“…the amendment fundamentally changes the nature of the FOI Act, by introducing a mandatory exception based soley on the subject-matter of a record. Such a subject-matter exception is a feature of outmoded, and rightly denigrated, access and privacy laws.

Former NDP MLA Jan Pullinger said it best during the Legislative debate on what the real reason was behind this legislation:

“We came into government with a commitment to the women of this province to stop the anti-abortion, anti-choice movement and to restore women’s fundamental right to choose, and we have done that.”

And so the battle continues.