The furor over Stephen Woodward’s private member’s motion in Parliament to discuss whether the un-born child is a human being has been front and centre in the media. Politicians, including the prime minister, and pro-choice advocates have attacked the motion by insisting either there’s nothing to discuss or debate must be silenced. But these are anti-democratic stances taken in our primary democratic institution, in relation to a foundational societal value – that of respect for human life.
Likewise, a recent change in Ontario law to restrict access to abortion information manifests the same clash between pro-democracy values (pro-freedom of speech, pro-transparency, pro-accountability, and so on) and anti-democracy values (denial of these rights). Contrary to strong contemporary trends in the opposite direction, this change moves Ontario from a pro-earned trust position (“Trust me, because I’ll show you that I can be trusted by keeping you fully in-formed”) to a pro-blind trust one (“Trust me, be-cause I know what’s best for you and will decide for you, so you don’t need information.”)
Effective Jan. 1, 2012, section 65 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) was amended to exclude records relating to the pro-vision of abortion services. This means “individuals no longer have a right to make access requests under Part II of FIPPA to an institution for records in the custody or under the control of that institution relating to the provision of abortion ser-vices.”
All information relating to abortion held by government institutions or departments in Ontario is now secret. We know doctors billed for over 44,000 abortions in Ontario in 2010, but this type of information will in future be hidden from the public.
This change has ethical implications. It might also raise legal issues. For in-stance, a right to freedom of speech is seriously cur-tailed if one is prevented from obtaining the facts needed to form one’s opinion. And we often speak of such restrictions, when they are imposed in non-democratic countries, as a breach of human rights.
This amendment to section 65 was slipped in, it seems silently, as part of Bill 122, an act to increase the financial account-ability of organizations in the broader public sector, hardly a title that would alert one to its presence.
Hansard does not record any debate in the Ontario legislature or at the committee hearings on Bill 122 on this change. There appear to be no media reports, which makes it unlikely most Ontarians were aware of it and could have ex-pressed their views to their MLAs prior to its enactment.
FIPPA is meant to augment the transparency, openness and accountability of all levels of government for their decisions and actions, and our right, as Canadian citizens, to participate in democracy and democratic decision-making. My guess is that if the same approach were taken to information on breast cancer, people would be outraged.
The Ontario government might have enacted this law as a response to two kinds of fear: The fear that abortion information could trigger violence between its supporters and opponents, and the fear of political fallout if that happened and from the facts on abortion becoming known.
In the past, the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care has re-fused a request under FIPPA for information regarding OHIP records related to abortion, citing “danger to life and physical safety,” “danger to security of a building,” “endangering the safety of service providers,” and a danger of pro-life “violence,” if the information were released. On appeal, the Ontario information and privacy commissioner ordered the ministry to disclose the re-quested statistics.
A similar situation arose in British Columbia, with an initial denial of access to information on abortion being overridden, on appeal, by the B.C. information and privacy commissioner. The B.C. legislature then stepped in to exempt abortion information from disclosure, although the exemption is narrower than Ontario’s. Continue Reading