Re: Census 2006 statistics ...

[Judyth-2]

Hugh McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:
>agree paper petition & letter-writing is best option. MPs are legally
>required to respond to paper letters, but not so with emails.

True but it goes even further than that: if an MP receives a paper petition in the proper form, duly signed by 25 voters, he/she *must* table it in the Commons and it becomes a part of the public record.

"Proper form" means the petition is formally addressed to the House of Commons and the full text of the (brief) petition is on the same sheet the voters sign. Signatories must also print their full names and addresses as well as signing, so that their signatures can be verified.

In terms of tactics, this means it can be a downright advantage to prepare the sheets to take only 25-30 names and have MPs table a big stack of paper each on an issue, or have them come in repeatedly to add more petitions on the same issue.

Getting back to the issue of census information release, the current census gives an option for people to authorize release of their personal data after 92 years and encourages people to check it off so their descendents can research their families. I suppose the idea is that people might want to remain unfindable until after they're dead.

Still, there is no earthly reason why the statistics, rather than the personal data, shouldn't be released to the public as soon as it's in the database ... except insofar as StatsCan makes money selling the aggregated data to private interests, whereas it would cost money to make it available free to all.

Can anyone think of a good argument for the government foregoing the income and assuming the extra costs, just so the citizenry can get access to information on their own country?

By "good" I mean one which would make sense to politicians who are both fiscally and socially conservative, rather than the ones that come naturally to us like the need for Canadians to know their own country better and the principle that since they're paying for the data they should have the right to see it. We already know how little those in control look forward to broader public access to publicily-funded information...

Regards,

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein   "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC         <[hidden email]>
Canada H4C 2P9       <[hidden email]>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."

[Tracey P. Lauriault-2]

Great Judith!
Any sources on where to find the "proper form" information? Have you done this before? 
I created a spot here and have included your thoughts & question:

http://civicaccess.ca/wiki/CensusAction

Also responses in-line

Judyth wrote:

Hugh McGuire [hidden email] wrote:
  

agree paper petition & letter-writing is best option. MPs are legally 
required to respond to paper letters, but not so with emails.
    

True but it goes even further than that: if an MP receives a paper petition in the proper form, duly signed by 25 voters, he/she *must* table it in the Commons and it becomes a part of the public record.

"Proper form" means the petition is formally addressed to the House of Commons and the full text of the (brief) petition is on the same sheet the voters sign. Signatories must also print their full names and addresses as well as signing, so that their signatures can be verified.

In terms of tactics, this means it can be a downright advantage to prepare the sheets to take only 25-30 names and have MPs table a big stack of paper each on an issue, or have them come in repeatedly to add more petitions on the same issue.
  

Wonderful! ACTION: What is the "proper form"?.

Getting back to the issue of census information release, the current census gives an option for people to authorize release of their personal data after 92 years and encourages people to check it off so their descendents can research their families. I suppose the idea is that people might want to remain unfindable until after they're dead.
  

Still, there is no earthly reason why the statistics, rather than the personal data, shouldn't be released to the public as soon as it's in the database ... except insofar as StatsCan makes money selling the aggregated data to private interests, whereas it would cost money to make it available free to all.

Can anyone think of a good argument for the government foregoing the income and assuming the extra costs, just so the citizenry can get access to information on their own country? 
  

It would be great to get as many valid answers to this as possible!  If we brainstorm here on the list, i will gladly put on the wiki, or you can do that to! I posted the question and these already.
2 big reasons:
a) Cost more to manage selling it than it does to give it away!
b) As a society we all loose (this pres provides a nice community online mapping argument in the second half - http://www.pnclink.org/pnc2005/chi/Presentation-PDF/018-Andrea%20Huang-GIS2.pdf)

would be good to get quotes and such.

By "good" I mean one which would make sense to politicians who are both fiscally and socially conservative, 

Yap! You are right!

rather than the ones that come naturally to us like the need for Canadians to know their own country better and the principle that since they're paying for the data they should have the right to see it. We already know how little those in control look forward to broader public access to publicily-funded information...
  

niice!

Regards,

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein   "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC         [hidden email]
Canada H4C 2P9       [hidden email]
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."



_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca

  

[Robin Millette]

On 5/15/06, Tracey P. Lauriault <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  Any sources on where to find the "proper form" information? Have you done
> this before?

Petitioning the House of Commons, a practical guide

In english:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/info/guipete.html

In french:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/info/guipetf.html

--
Robin 'oqp' Millette : http://rym.waglo.com/
Président de FACIL : http://facil.qc.ca/

[Stephane Guidoin]

The Census website is available for Linux User since last friday :
http://www12.statcan.ca/IRC/francais/advisory_f.htm

3 days before the end of the sensus period, that's a pity...

Obviously, we should do a "Free our census data" campaign. There's no
urge because this campaign should reach its climax when they will
release the census data (should take some monthes). I think a campaign
specifically designed for the census will be more effective than a
campaign concerning all/any civic data because it's more understandable.
We'll get a better media coverage for this topic for example.

The paper-certified petition is a very good way. I think that meeting
our MPs could also be a good thing. If we could find one or two MP who
could "champion" our ideas, it could be a great help. But we need to
meet them and convince them and "sell" our idea (and not just send mails
and petitions)

Stéphane

[Russell McOrmond-2]

Stephane Guidoin wrote:
> The Census website is available for Linux User since last friday :
> http://www12.statcan.ca/IRC/francais/advisory_f.htm

   The most geeky of Linux users will be able to access the census
online.  None of the required JVM (Java Virtual Machine)'s are FLOSS,
and thus are not installed by default on the vast majority of desktops,
nor is it available with the various package management tools that
automatically download software from the chosen distribution.  Only the
geeky Linux users will know  how to download the proprietary Sun JVM.

   The far more major security, privacy, transparency and accountability
issues remain.  http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2443

   I still recommend people avoid the online census no matter what type
of computer they use, as the methodology used to secure the data is
undisclosed, and the software that is downloaded and executed on the
persons personal computer is undisclosed.  For all we know the software
sent by the government is a RootKit that attacks the computer, much like
what SonyBMG included on many of their "Audio CDs" in the past.

--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  2415+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording,
  Movie and "software manufacturing" industries from modernization.
  Send a letter to your Canadian MP! --> http://digital-copyright.ca/

[Richard Houston]

Hey all,

What about making the petition for "a policy for open standers for
Government of Canada websites and web delivered information"? We could
site the census2006 as an example.

Just a thought. I think that this serve the greater propose and fits into
the CivicAccess mandate does it not.

I understand that the Java issue is still there but at least we have a
small victory. I fully agree that we need to promote fully open standers
that do not require anything client side. I still feel this is a step in
the right direction.





+------------------------------------+
Best regards,
-Richard Houston
-R.L.H.  Consulting
-E-Mail  [hidden email]
-WWW     http://www.rlhc.net
-Blog    http://www.rlhc.net/blog/

> The Census website is available for Linux User since last friday :
> http://www12.statcan.ca/IRC/francais/advisory_f.htm
>
>
> 3 days before the end of the sensus period, that's a pity...
>
>
> Obviously, we should do a "Free our census data" campaign. There's no
> urge because this campaign should reach its climax when they will release
> the census data (should take some monthes). I think a campaign
> specifically designed for the census will be more effective than a
> campaign concerning all/any civic data because it's more understandable.
>  We'll get a better media coverage for this topic for example.
>
>
> The paper-certified petition is a very good way. I think that meeting
> our MPs could also be a good thing. If we could find one or two MP who
> could "champion" our ideas, it could be a great help. But we need to meet
> them and convince them and "sell" our idea (and not just send mails and
> petitions)
>
> Stéphane
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>
>
>

[Stephane Guidoin]

Hi Richard,

> What about making the petition for "a policy for open standers for
> Government of Canada websites and web delivered information"? We could
> site the census2006 as an example.
>
> Just a thought. I think that this serve the greater propose and fits into
> the CivicAccess mandate does it not.

It's true and it's even an element that goes further than what we target. Our
target (for the census for example), is more to have access to the data. I
think some other groups focus more on the "open standard" question and
obivously we should agree with them. But our task (to get public data... public
!) is already vast not to take the risk to lose our focus.

[Russell McOrmond-2]

On Tue, 16 May 2006, Richard Houston wrote:

> Hey all,
>
> What about making the petition for "a policy for open standers for
> Government of Canada websites and web delivered information"? We could
> site the census2006 as an example.



   Unfortunately you would have an uphill battle at this point if the
government truly believes they "really really really" needed to run an
application on the citizen's computer.  There is no "standard" to do this
that runs on every platform.  The closest thing we have currently is the
ECMA's standardization of C# and the CLI.  This makes that platform far
more appropriate than the proprietary Java and the JVM, but you are still
locking out the low and high-end (Small/older machines, and mobile devices
such as PDA's, etc) which do not run such complex language interpreters.

   I don't think the online community would have been any happier if
appropriate standards would have been required for that application given
only the most recent versions of OS's have C#/CLI  (Mono for Linux/etc,
.NET for Microsoft, and I have to admit I don't know what MacOS-X has for
this standard).  You are still downloading an application of unknown
origins that has an undocumented task, with applications always having a
target platform that creates incompatabilities.

   I think this is a bit outside of CivicAccess which is not the technical
details of how the government interacts with citizens, but the
availability to citizens of government generated information.  While there
is overlap, they aren't the same.

   I think the better venue for what you are looking for is GOSLING -
http://GOSLINGcommunity.org .  While there is an active Ottawa chapter, we
haven't yet launched chapters in other cities and are looking for help.

--
  Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
  2415+ Canadians oppose Bill C-60 which protects antiquated Recording,
  Movie and "software manufacturing" industries from modernization.
  Send a letter to your Canadian MP! --> http://digital-copyright.ca/

[Michael Boyle]

This whole discussion has been extremely disappointing for a list  
that I still hope will have some promise

1. The Census form is a tiny part of all government online  
endeavours. No one here has presented any evidence that it is any way  
representative of anything - especially nothing "further than we  
target".

2. No one has made the case that a (certainly) quite ridiculous  
browser requirement has anything to do with data accessibility later  
on. Furthermore, there is no evidence that what happens on one side  
of the census bears any relationship, online, to what comes out the  
other end.

3. So before we get out the pitchforks and torches and storm the  
castle, it might be worthwhile to try to understand what government  
policy is related to open standards and how policies such as these  
are made.

4. I read the pages on the Stats Can website closely and I don't see  
that the information on the site has changed one bit. I don't  
understand how this is a "victory"? The site always said that the JVM  
was the issue.

5. A petition has to be presented TO someone. There is no single body  
that makes this decision for the government. And if there were, it  
would certainly not be in any position to ENFORCE the decision.  
That's just not how government policy works.

6. The actual evidence of what the Canadian government IS doing that  
is a GREAT deal more optimistic than the census. If there were a  
central agency who decided this stuff for everyone, the Treasury  
Board Secretariat would be it. Here's their take on this kind of  
thing: "http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ig-gi/index_e.asp". Note that they  
can only recommend, not decide. Also note that there are at least 8  
different laws and policies that have to be adhered to by every  
government website. So though the census site decision might very  
well have been faulty, that doesn't really mean that much.

So, please, can we move on to something more significant? Tracey has  
been making great points about an important issue - data  
accessibility later on - which seems much closer to the intent of  
this list and the overall effort. And Michael has been trying to do  
some interesting organizing of meetings and such.

Thanks.

Michael

On 16-May-06, at 4:04 PM, Stephane Guidoin wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
>> What about making the petition for "a policy for open standers for
>> Government of Canada websites and web delivered information"? We  
>> could
>> site the census2006 as an example.
>>
>> Just a thought. I think that this serve the greater propose and  
>> fits into
>> the CivicAccess mandate does it not.
>
> It's true and it's even an element that goes further than what we  
> target. Our
> target (for the census for example), is more to have access to the  
> data. I
> think some other groups focus more on the "open standard" question and
> obivously we should agree with them. But our task (to get public  
> data... public
> !) is already vast not to take the risk to lose our focus.

_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Boyle                                           www.mikel.org

[Tracey P. Lauriault-2]

Hi Michael;

I am sorry you are disappointed, however, as many have pointed out we are trying to make social, economic, political, environmental, health etc. data & information available to Canadians.  At the moment there is no other group doing this.  There are however numerous groups working on open source issues, and Russel quite rightly pointed you to GOSLING and others have pointed you to FACIL and as you are well aware in any city you go to in Canada you will find groups of open source advocates doing exactly what it is you are looking for.

As Stephane pointed out earlier, focusing on data and information is quite a large and broad activity and there needs to be a group in Canada to do that.

Also see comments in-line.

Sincerely
Tracey

Michael Boyle wrote:

This whole discussion has been extremely disappointing for a list  
that I still hope will have some promise

1. The Census form is a tiny part of all government online  
endeavours. No one here has presented any evidence that it is any way  
representative of anything - especially nothing "further than we  
target".
  

The government of Canada has 12 Federal departments, numerous research institutes, data collecting agencies and Statistics Canada conducts hundreds of surveys and in fact manages the national accounts.  The Census is but one part.

2. No one has made the case that a (certainly) quite ridiculous  
browser requirement has anything to do with data accessibility later  
on. Furthermore, there is no evidence that what happens on one side  
of the census bears any relationship, online, to what comes out the  
other end.

3. So before we get out the pitchforks and torches and storm the  
castle, it might be worthwhile to try to understand what government  
policy is related to open standards and how policies such as these  
are made.
  

See -

GOSLING - http://GOSLINGcommunity.org
FACIL - http://facil.qc.ca/PageAccueil

4. I read the pages on the Stats Can website closely and I don't see  
that the information on the site has changed one bit. I don't  
understand how this is a "victory"? The site always said that the JVM  
was the issue.

5. A petition has to be presented TO someone. There is no single body  
that makes this decision for the government. And if there were, it  
would certainly not be in any position to ENFORCE the decision.  
That's just not how government policy works.

6. The actual evidence of what the Canadian government IS doing that  
is a GREAT deal more optimistic than the census. If there were a  
central agency who decided this stuff for everyone, the Treasury  
Board Secretariat would be it. Here's their take on this kind of  
thing: "http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ig-gi/index_e.asp". Note that they  
can only recommend, not decide. Also note that there are at least 8  
different laws and policies that have to be adhered to by every  
government website. So though the census site decision might very  
well have been faulty, that doesn't really mean that much.

So, please, can we move on to something more significant? Tracey has  
been making great points about an important issue - data  
accessibility later on - which seems much closer to the intent of  
this list and the overall effort. And Michael has been trying to do  
some interesting organizing of meetings and such.
  

We are starting up and people get a feel for things on a complex topic. And I like the energy that is coming together on the Census, and we have 2 conference presentations lined up, and we have been featured by one of our members at a conference in Paris.  So I believe we are moving on with things and getting to know each other at the same time. 

Cheers
T

Thanks.

Michael

On 16-May-06, at 4:04 PM, Stephane Guidoin wrote:

  

Hi Richard,

    

What about making the petition for "a policy for open standers for
Government of Canada websites and web delivered information"? We  
could
site the census2006 as an example.

Just a thought. I think that this serve the greater propose and  
fits into
the CivicAccess mandate does it not.
      

It's true and it's even an element that goes further than what we  
target. Our
target (for the census for example), is more to have access to the  
data. I
think some other groups focus more on the "open standard" question and
obivously we should agree with them. But our task (to get public  
data... public
!) is already vast not to take the risk to lose our focus.
    

_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Boyle                                           www.mikel.org



_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca

  

[Judyth Mermelstein]

"Tracey P. Lauriault" <[hidden email]> wrote in part:
>Wonderful! ACTION: What is the "proper form"?.

As per http://www.parl.gc.ca/info/guipete.html
"PETITIONING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE"

- handwritten, typed, printed or photocopied on sheets of paper of usual size, i.e. measuring 21.5 cm x 28 cm (8 1/2 x 11 inches) or 21.5 cm x 35.5 cm (8 1/2 x 14 inches).
- addressed "To the House of Commons" or "To the House of Commons in Parliament assembled" (Petitions to the Government of Canada, the Prime Minister, a Minister, or an individual Member of Parliament are not acceptable.)
- must be respectful and use temperate language.
- text of the petition must not be altered either by erasing or crossing out words or by adding words.
- no attachments or supporting documents. A return address is allowed.
- must concern a subject within the authority of the Parliament of Canada. The petition must not concern a purely provincial or municipal matter or any matter which should be brought before a court of law or a tribunal.
- must contain a request, called a "prayer", for Parliament to take some action (or refrain from taking some action) to remedy a grievance. A statement of grievance or a statement of opinion alone cannot be received as a petition. The petition must not, however, demand or insist that Parliament do something.
- The "prayer" [a.k.a., what's being requested] should be clear and to the point. Details which the petitioners think important may be included in the statement of grievance.
- Some signatures and addresses should, if possible, appear on the first sheet with the "prayer". The subject-matter of the petition must be indicated on each of the other sheets containing signatures and addresses.
- must contain a minimum of 25 valid signatures, each with the address of the petitioner. The signature of a Member of Parliament is not counted.
- Each petitioner must sign his or her own name directly on the petition and must not sign for anyone else. Names should be signed, not printed. Signatures cannot be attached to a sheet (taped or pasted on) or photocopied onto it. If a petitioner cannot sign because of illness or a disability, this must be noted on the petition and the note signed by a witness.
- The petitioner's address must be written directly on the petition and not pasted on or reproduced. The petitioner may give his or her full home address or simply the city and province.
- Aliens not resident in Canada cannot petition the House of Commons of Canada.

The  ficticious model petition provided is:

>PETITION
>
>TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED
>
>We, the undersigned residents of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:
>
>THAT incidents of X are becoming more and more frequent;
>
>THAT each incident of X harms the public; and
>
>THAT there would be fewer such incidents if certain legislative measures were taken
>
>THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against X.

and they say that, after the first page with the full text, 
>the subject-matter of this ficticious petition could be shown as follows: >PETITION ASKING PARLIAMENT TO ENACT LEGISLATION AGAINST X.

The rules for submission say an MP can refuse to present the petition and suggest one submit the draft text for approval before collecting signatures, which seems remarkably undemocratic to me. Anyway, a petition can be presented by any sitting MP so it should be easy enough to find one who will agree to present it.

€ A Member may present a petition to the House in either of two ways: by making a brief statement in the House regarding the origin and subject of the petition, or by filing the petition with the Clerk of the House while the House is sitting. The act of presenting a petition does not necessarily mean that the Member supports it.
€ If a Member makes a statement in the House when presenting a petition, the statement is reproduced in Hansard, the official record of the debates. A record of each petition presented, whether or not a statement is made, appears in the Journals for that day.
€ Once the petition has been presented, it is sent to the Government, which must table a response in the House within 45 days.

Clerk of Petitions
Private Members' Business Office
Room 131-N
Centre Block
House of Commons
 [phone]
Fax [phone]

The sample form provided is from Private Members' Business Office
(July 1997) and I've bracketed the instructions to set them off from the petition's contents.

==========
PETITION
TO THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED

We, the undersigned

[Here identify, in general terms, who the petitioners are, for example
- citizens (or residents) of Canada
- electors of (name of electoral district)
- residents of the Province of....
- residents of the City (or Village or Township, etc.) of....]

draw the attention of the House to the following:

THAT

[Here briefly state the reasons underlying the request for the intervention of the House by outlining the grievance or problem or by summarizing the facts which the petitioners wish the House to consider.]

THEREFORE, your petitioners

Request that Parliament
[or "call upon Parliament to"]
[... stating succinctly what action the petitioners wish Parliament to take or what action it should refrain from taking.]

Signatures
(Sign your own name. Do not print)
Addresses
(Give your full home address or your city and province)

________________________________________

THEREFORE, your petitioners
[Here repeat the "prayer" from the first page of the petition.]

Signatures [in cursive]
Addresses [full home address or your city and province]

Petition concerning
[Here state the subject matter of the petition.]

Signatures [in cursive]
Addresses [full home address or your city and province]

============

Especially in the light of the interview snippet "Ted Hildebrandt" <[hidden email]> posted, we should probably discuss what, if anything, this group would like to petition the House for.

Much as I object personally to awarding the contract for the census technology to Lockheed Martin, that deal has already been done. Once the government outsourced that stuff, it lost the "privilege" under NAFTA of keeping any foreign company from getting taxpayers' money, no matter what the company does to incur our disapproval as citizens. In other words, there isn't a damned thing Parliament can do about it, short of voting to get us out of NAFTA ... which neither a Liberal nor a Conservative government will ever allow them to vote on.

To me, that means it would make more sense for us to reserve the use of petitions for something on which MPs will have the chance to vote, and preferably something which provides enough lead-time to do a bit of public education on the issue as well as gathering signatures from the activists who regularly sign petitions and write to their MPs.  

In other words, what I would like to see is a broader petition on free accessibility of information developed at public expense, in which the full census data (barring personal identities) would be included, but also a much wider variety of reports, studies, etc. conducted by various government departments and crown corporations. I doubt it will make much difference in legislative terms --- the present Prime Minister having tonight ditched yet another essential component of his "clean up government" initiative just because his nominee wasn't rubber-stamped by the House as the "impartial" maker of federal appointments.

Tracy responded to my question
>> Can anyone think of a good argument for the government foregoing the income and assuming the extra costs, just so the citizenry can get access to information on their own country?
>>  
with

>It would be great to get as many valid answers to this as possible!  If
>we brainstorm here on the list, i will gladly put on the wiki, or you
>can do that to! I posted the question and these already.
>2 big reasons:
>a) Cost more to manage selling it than it does to give it away!
>b) As a society we all loose (this pres provides a nice community online
>mapping argument in the second half -
>http://www.pnclink.org/pnc2005/chi/Presentation-PDF/018-Andrea%20Huang-GIS2.pdf)
>
>would be good to get quotes and such.

Actually, it would be fascinating if one had the means to do the math on how much our federal government spends to delay and reject Freedom of Information requests from the media and the public, as well as the real costs of maintaining the cumbersome mechanisms which keep much "public" information from being easily located by members of the public.

I recently spent over 60 hours trying to gather information from the "accessible" federal Web sites on the application procedures and deadlines for  grants to the various arts. Most of the Web pages more-or-less met the degree of *Web* accessibility the Liberals promised 2-3 years ago ... but the actual information which prospective applicants or researchers would need was in many cases only to be gathered from consulting several pages, sometimes including pages on the sites of different departments or even external agencies, and occasionally not available at all since the previous year's data had not been updated. Imagine the joys of trying to do that kind of research with a slow dial-up connection or in odd blocks of an hour here and there obtainable on a library's public access computer. Maybe it's naive of me but I can't help thinking if you genuinely want the public to get all its information from the 'Net (to cut back public service jobs and save office costs, natch) then you should surely keep in mind that only about half the public has regular Internet access and only half of them have the unlimited broadband access and/or stubbornness to scan dozens of pages for relevant dates, forms and links.

I think her item a) fits the bill, though b) is unlikely to cut any ice with the folks I referred to in:
>> By "good" I mean one which would make sense to politicians who are
>>both fiscally and socially conservative,

If one were to take Stephen Harper at his word and assume he genuinely wants to clean up the corruption in government spending, he just might be receptive to the argument that if the Liberals had had to post Groupe Action's reports on the Web on receipt, next to the specs of their contract and the price paid for the "work," the so-called "sponsorship scandal" would have been available to his party in opposition, not to mention the many muckraking journalists who would have helped bring the Liberal government down that much sooner. Of course, he might by somewhat less keen on the idea if he reflected on the equal accessibility of evidence of many previous political scandals and those which will undoubtedly emerge in the future. On his performance thus far, I'm afraid I thing Harper uses "accountability" and "open government" as slogans without expecting Canadians to hold him accountable and demand to be kept fully informed.

It would be awfully nice to get legislation which actually made sure *no* federal government could hide its skeletons to protect the "good buddies" who got paid off in contracts for their campaign contributions or the bagmen and appointment-holders who get rich at public expense for facilitating the chicanery. Anyone here game for a shot at drafting that petition?

Regards,

Judyth
(a.k.a. Doña Quixote)

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein   "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC         <[hidden email]>
Canada H4C 2P9       <[hidden email]>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."

[Hugh McGuire]

hey michael,

i read thru your comments and wasn't clear on what was disappointing ...
did you mean the discussions about the census as a civicaccess.ca project?

if so, i can't really speak to the issue itself, because i have little
expertise in the area. But I do think that for civicaccess.ca to be
successful, we need to focus on a few specific projects -- hopefully
relatively simple, high-ish profile projects -- that fall within the
scope of the mission of the organization. we have two routes - we can be
an advocacy group; or a group that supports projects...rather a group
that brings like-minded project-doers together. To me the second is much
more interesting & actually makes the first easier and more effective.

census seemed to me to fit that category. it's something people know
about, it makes sense within the scope of civicaccess, and it's
obviously  information that citizens should have access to. that it's a
small piece of a big puzzle is in fact a good thing. civicaccess has
some teeth to cut and this is one project that seems to make sense to me.

perhaps I am wrong. I may have missed something, i have not been reading
all the recent posts in detail. And i didn't fully understand your
objections.

but in any case, if recent discussions on the list have been
disappointing, what would be un-disappointing? ie, civicaccess is a
grouping of citizens with a loose interest in the same issues, trying to
find ways to advance a noble cause: data freedom for the people. if the
census is a bad place to put energy, where is a good place?

hugh.






Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:

>   Hi Michael;
>
> I am sorry you are disappointed, however, as many have pointed out we
> are trying to make social, economic, political, environmental, health
> etc. data & information available to Canadians.  At the moment there is
> no other group doing this.  There are however numerous groups working on
> open source issues, and Russel quite rightly pointed you to GOSLING and
> others have pointed you to FACIL and as you are well aware in any city
> you go to in Canada you will find groups of open source advocates doing
> exactly what it is you are looking for.
>
> As Stephane pointed out earlier, focusing on data and information is
> quite a large and broad activity and there needs to be a group in Canada
> to do that.
>
> Also see comments in-line.
>
> Sincerely
> Tracey
>
> Michael Boyle wrote:
>> This whole discussion has been extremely disappointing for a list  
>> that I still hope will have some promise
>>
>> 1. The Census form is a tiny part of all government online  
>> endeavours. No one here has presented any evidence that it is any way  
>> representative of anything - especially nothing "further than we  
>> target".
>>  
> The government of Canada has 12 Federal departments, numerous research
> institutes, data collecting agencies and Statistics Canada conducts
> hundreds of surveys and in fact manages the national accounts.  The
> Census is but one part.
>> 2. No one has made the case that a (certainly) quite ridiculous  
>> browser requirement has anything to do with data accessibility later  
>> on. Furthermore, there is no evidence that what happens on one side  
>> of the census bears any relationship, online, to what comes out the  
>> other end.
>>
>> 3. So before we get out the pitchforks and torches and storm the  
>> castle, it might be worthwhile to try to understand what government  
>> policy is related to open standards and how policies such as these  
>> are made.
>>  
> See -
>
> GOSLING - http://GOSLINGcommunity.org
> FACIL - http://facil.qc.ca/PageAccueil
>
>> 4. I read the pages on the Stats Can website closely and I don't see  
>> that the information on the site has changed one bit. I don't  
>> understand how this is a "victory"? The site always said that the JVM  
>> was the issue.
>>
>> 5. A petition has to be presented TO someone. There is no single body  
>> that makes this decision for the government. And if there were, it  
>> would certainly not be in any position to ENFORCE the decision.  
>> That's just not how government policy works.
>>
>> 6. The actual evidence of what the Canadian government IS doing that  
>> is a GREAT deal more optimistic than the census. If there were a  
>> central agency who decided this stuff for everyone, the Treasury  
>> Board Secretariat would be it. Here's their take on this kind of  
>> thing: "http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ig-gi/index_e.asp". Note that they  
>> can only recommend, not decide. Also note that there are at least 8  
>> different laws and policies that have to be adhered to by every  
>> government website. So though the census site decision might very  
>> well have been faulty, that doesn't really mean that much.
>>
>> So, please, can we move on to something more significant? Tracey has  
>> been making great points about an important issue - data  
>> accessibility later on - which seems much closer to the intent of  
>> this list and the overall effort. And Michael has been trying to do  
>> some interesting organizing of meetings and such.
>>  
> We are starting up and people get a feel for things on a complex topic.
> And I like the energy that is coming together on the Census, and we have
> 2 conference presentations lined up, and we have been featured by one of
> our members at a conference in Paris.  So I believe we are moving on
> with things and getting to know each other at the same time.
>
> Cheers
> T
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On 16-May-06, at 4:04 PM, Stephane Guidoin wrote:
>>
>>  
>>> Hi Richard,
>>>
>>>    
>>>> What about making the petition for "a policy for open standers for
>>>> Government of Canada websites and web delivered information"? We  
>>>> could
>>>> site the census2006 as an example.
>>>>
>>>> Just a thought. I think that this serve the greater propose and  
>>>> fits into
>>>> the CivicAccess mandate does it not.
>>>>      
>>> It's true and it's even an element that goes further than what we  
>>> target. Our
>>> target (for the census for example), is more to have access to the  
>>> data. I
>>> think some other groups focus more on the "open standard" question and
>>> obivously we should agree with them. But our task (to get public  
>>> data... public
>>> !) is already vast not to take the risk to lose our focus.
>>>    
>> _____________________________________________________________________
>> Michael Boyle                                           www.mikel.org <http://www.mikel.org>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
>> [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>>
>>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca

[Michael Boyle]

Hi,

Tracey I totally agree with you. That's why I am disappointed that a)  
so much thrash is being wasted on whether or not the census form is  
accessible, thrash that has generated a lot of heat but not much  
light; and, b) the list doesn't seem to be concentrating on the  
issues that you have been posting about - that is, the civic access  
to data.

I agree that there are important issues to deal with related to these  
subjects - I don't think that a critique of the census form online is  
relevant to this mission. And I certainly don't think that drawing  
any conclusions about "government online" based on one census form is  
even a little bit useful. Rather, it is a meaningless distraction  
from the work that you have been trying to do.

MB

On 17-May-06, at 12:20 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:

> as many have pointed out we are trying to make social, economic,  
> political, environmental, health etc. data & information available  
> to Canadians.

_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Boyle                                           www.mikel.org

[Michael Lenczner]

i wonder if people understood michael's point that being upset about
the way that the government collects data has nothing to do with
CivicAcces's goal of getting access to data once it is collected.  i
didn't even realize the distinction at first.

He's not saying that it's not important - just that is has nothing to
do directly with CivicAccess.

Russel is correct in saying that this is a more gosling appropriate.

Staying focused is going to be more difficult that I thought- not be
going into projects more appropriate for Gosling, Facil (quebec free
software umbrella group), digital/copyright canada, etc.



On 5/17/06, Michael Boyle <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Tracey I totally agree with you. That's why I am disappointed that a)
> so much thrash is being wasted on whether or not the census form is
> accessible, thrash that has generated a lot of heat but not much
> light; and, b) the list doesn't seem to be concentrating on the
> issues that you have been posting about - that is, the civic access
> to data.
>
> I agree that there are important issues to deal with related to these
> subjects - I don't think that a critique of the census form online is
> relevant to this mission. And I certainly don't think that drawing
> any conclusions about "government online" based on one census form is
> even a little bit useful. Rather, it is a meaningless distraction
> from the work that you have been trying to do.
>
> MB
>
> On 17-May-06, at 12:20 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
>
> > as many have pointed out we are trying to make social, economic,
> > political, environmental, health etc. data & information available
> > to Canadians.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Michael Boyle                                           www.mikel.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>

[Jason Loughead-2]

Ok the founder of the groups should reflect the mandate in a more narrowly
focused mission if people are to join with the right goals in mind. This is
purely about access to data from the government? Aren't there already
consumer and civil liberties groups working on this?

Jason


On Thursday 18 May 2006 3:59 am, Michael Lenczner wrote:

> i wonder if people understood michael's point that being upset about
> the way that the government collects data has nothing to do with
> CivicAcces's goal of getting access to data once it is collected.  i
> didn't even realize the distinction at first.
>
> He's not saying that it's not important - just that is has nothing to
> do directly with CivicAccess.
>
> Russel is correct in saying that this is a more gosling appropriate.
>
> Staying focused is going to be more difficult that I thought- not be
> going into projects more appropriate for Gosling, Facil (quebec free
> software umbrella group), digital/copyright canada, etc.
>
> On 5/17/06, Michael Boyle <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Tracey I totally agree with you. That's why I am disappointed that a)
> > so much thrash is being wasted on whether or not the census form is
> > accessible, thrash that has generated a lot of heat but not much
> > light; and, b) the list doesn't seem to be concentrating on the
> > issues that you have been posting about - that is, the civic access
> > to data.
> >
> > I agree that there are important issues to deal with related to these
> > subjects - I don't think that a critique of the census form online is
> > relevant to this mission. And I certainly don't think that drawing
> > any conclusions about "government online" based on one census form is
> > even a little bit useful. Rather, it is a meaningless distraction
> > from the work that you have been trying to do.
> >
> > MB
> >
> > On 17-May-06, at 12:20 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
> > > as many have pointed out we are trying to make social, economic,
> > > political, environmental, health etc. data & information available
> > > to Canadians.
> >
> > _____________________________________________________________________
> > Michael Boyle                                           www.mikel.org
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca

--
Software shouldn't be your struggle

[Stephane Guidoin]

Hi Jason,

The mandate is pretty clear (to me) :
"1. To encourage all levels of governments (county, municipal, provincial,
federal) to make civic data and information available to citizens without
restrictions, at no cost, and in useable open formats.
2. To encourage the development of citizen projects using civic data and
information"

We want to take care of the "output" of the gov data and not the input. For what
we saw until now, there's no other groups with such goal (in Canada).

(Obviously the input is also important but there are some other groups who work
in this domain. We can relay information/petition concerning the census website
incompatibilities, for example, but we can't afford spending time on this kind
of issue. Our goal is already large enough not to lose focus)

Stéphane


Selon Jason Loughead <[hidden email]>:

> Ok the founder of the groups should reflect the mandate in a more narrowly
> focused mission if people are to join with the right goals in mind. This is
> purely about access to data from the government? Aren't there already
> consumer and civil liberties groups working on this?
>
> Jason
>

[Hugh McGuire]

stephane, thanks for the reminder ... i was getting a bit lost in a
debate I couldn't quite understand! it's nice to have a clear mandate,
makes things much ... clearer.

hugh.

Stephane Guidoin wrote:

> Hi Jason,
>
> The mandate is pretty clear (to me) :
> "1. To encourage all levels of governments (county, municipal, provincial,
> federal) to make civic data and information available to citizens without
> restrictions, at no cost, and in useable open formats.
> 2. To encourage the development of citizen projects using civic data and
> information"
>
> We want to take care of the "output" of the gov data and not the input. For what
> we saw until now, there's no other groups with such goal (in Canada).
>
> (Obviously the input is also important but there are some other groups who work
> in this domain. We can relay information/petition concerning the census website
> incompatibilities, for example, but we can't afford spending time on this kind
> of issue. Our goal is already large enough not to lose focus)
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> Selon Jason Loughead <[hidden email]>:
>
>> Ok the founder of the groups should reflect the mandate in a more narrowly
>> focused mission if people are to join with the right goals in mind. This is
>> purely about access to data from the government? Aren't there already
>> consumer and civil liberties groups working on this?
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
>

[Tracey P. Lauriault-2]

See - http://civicaccess.ca/wiki/FrontPage   -    http://civicaccess.ca/wiki/PageD%27Accueil


Jason Loughead wrote:

Ok the founder of the groups should reflect the mandate in a more narrowly 
focused mission if people are to join with the right goals in mind. This is 
purely about access to data from the government? Aren't there already 
consumer and civil liberties groups working on this?

Jason


On Thursday 18 May 2006 3:59 am, Michael Lenczner wrote:
  

i wonder if people understood michael's point that being upset about
the way that the government collects data has nothing to do with
CivicAcces's goal of getting access to data once it is collected.  i
didn't even realize the distinction at first.

He's not saying that it's not important - just that is has nothing to
do directly with CivicAccess.

Russel is correct in saying that this is a more gosling appropriate.

Staying focused is going to be more difficult that I thought- not be
going into projects more appropriate for Gosling, Facil (quebec free
software umbrella group), digital/copyright canada, etc.

On 5/17/06, Michael Boyle [hidden email] wrote:
    

Hi,

Tracey I totally agree with you. That's why I am disappointed that a)
so much thrash is being wasted on whether or not the census form is
accessible, thrash that has generated a lot of heat but not much
light; and, b) the list doesn't seem to be concentrating on the
issues that you have been posting about - that is, the civic access
to data.

I agree that there are important issues to deal with related to these
subjects - I don't think that a critique of the census form online is
relevant to this mission. And I certainly don't think that drawing
any conclusions about "government online" based on one census form is
even a little bit useful. Rather, it is a meaningless distraction
from the work that you have been trying to do.

MB

On 17-May-06, at 12:20 AM, Tracey P. Lauriault wrote:
      

as many have pointed out we are trying to make social, economic,
political, environmental, health etc. data & information available
to Canadians.
        

_____________________________________________________________________
Michael Boyle                                           www.mikel.org



_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca
      

_______________________________________________
CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
[hidden email]
http://civicaccess.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss_civicaccess.ca