The individual, whose identity cannot legally be revealed, sent 448 separate requests for information from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in the four-month period between Sept. 1, 2007, and the end of the year. The CBC first became subject to federal access-to-information laws on Sept. 1 and has now received 604 requests — almost all of them from that same individual.

In addition to the mountain of information requests, the same person also filed a staggering 524 complaints in 2007. Presumably, each one of these has to be investigated and responded thereby adding to the workload and expense of the federal information commissioner’s office.

One can only speculate as to motives and nature of the requests (a possible theory might be to obtain potentially embarrassing expense reports), but irrespective, surely there must be a point at which such behaviour simply becomes a form of malicious harassment. At the very least, shouldn’t there be a reasonable limit on the number of requests that can be filed by any one private individual within a specified period of time?

For this reason, freedom of information law is peddled around the globe by transnational and national institutions alike, as a must-have for any self-proclaimed democracy.

This push often comes in the form of political aid or funding conditions.

For example, Pakistan eventually agreed to adopt a Freedom of Information Ordinance in September 2002, as part of an anti-corruption program promised in return for US$1.4 billion in aid from the International Monetary Fund.

The implementation of such anti-corruption conditionality raises certain questions. For instance, to what extent does the adoption of freedom of information law simply become a box-ticking exercise, devoid of any real meaning, under these circumstances?

However, I’d like to avoid such questions in this entry and make a comment on the politics involved in funding conditionality and state transparency.

Politics can often prevent donors from attaching certain conditions to funding. A donor might not have a interest in pressuring certain recipients into adopting unpleasant transparency and anti-corruption reforms

Donor conditionality is very rarely applied as a tool to fight corruption in Central Asia and the Middle East, for example.

The 2003 Global Corruption Report by Transparency International notes:

…the United States provided Uzbekistan with US$160 million in aid in 2002. For its part, the European Union announced a doubling of aid to Uzbekistan and the Asian Development Bank plans to lend US $300 million over three years to reduce the country’s economic isolation, matching a similar load from the World Bank. It is unclear whether anti-corruption conditions will be attached to the loans.

Moreover, the same report says donor conditionality is rarely applied as a tool to fight corruption in the Middle East and North Africa:

…donors committed more than US $10 billion in aid to Egypt for 2002-2004 but, as in the past, transparency did not feature among the conditions attached to the package. By contrast, the United States put intense pressure on the Palestinian Authority to effect deep reforms in its administration and security forces, including measures to fight corruption…

Of course, Central Asia, the Middle East and North Africa are oil rich regions and pivotal in the so-called ‘War on Terror’ led by the United States, the single superpower.

‘So what? That’s politics and realist international relations’, you might say and you may be right.

Nevertheless, I bring up the topic of politics in the conditions of funding as a reminder that there is nothing inevitable about freedom of information law, despite its supposed universality.

Access to government-held information will prevail only when power, internal and/or external, is behind transparency, anti-corruption and open government.

The Fiji Times wrote: 

The invitation from the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and the United National Development Program Pacific Centre was extended to Ministry of Information deputy secretary Major Neumi Leweni.

Over the past two days, Major Leweni refused to discuss his reasons for not attending the workshop which will be held next week in the Solomon Islands.

According to the Solomon Times, the aim of the workshop is to draw stakeholders from forum island countries to get to understand issues surrounding freedom of information.

Interim Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said Fiji was big on freedom of information.

The implementation of the legislation was recommended by the National Council for Building a Better Fiji, he said. He said he knew Major Leweni would not be at the workshop despite the invitation.

Mr Sayed-Khaiyum had requested a FOI model legislation from United Nations resident representative Richard Dictus...[full]

Nevertheless, the show went on in spite of Fiji's absence. In opening the workshop, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Derek Sikua said:

There are many reasons why most, if not all, countries in our region including Solomon Islands are free countries. The main and enduring reason is that we are democracies, and a central tenet of democracy is the guarantee of human rights, one of which is freedom of information. My Government is fully cognizant of the direct link between freedom of information and good governance (transparency and accountability). Thus we support media freedom in the country, provided they (the media) report responsibly.

I understand that during the course of this workshop you will discuss what freedom of information entails or means; the value of freedom of information; how we could legislate for this fundamental human right; and the challenges to freedom of information...[full]

Also see an article in the Pacific Magazine that discusses the workshop.

There are currently over 70 access to information/freedom of information (ATI/FOI) laws in existence worldwide*. The Swedish law dates back to 1766, while a handful are older than 25 years. However, the majority were passed and implemented in the last 10 years. Despite their proliferation, there is little knowledge about how well they work or whether they are achieving the objectives set out for them.

Evaluations have been carried out in several countries but it's not easy to find information on the methods that were used or the results of the studies. This is a problem because many governments and other organizations would like to evaluate the ATI law in their country but do not know how to go about it.

The site includes complete projects, ongoing projects, proposed projects and government statistics from around the world. It is a valuable resource and anyone can contribute.

The council of advisors of the Cartaker Goverment of Bangladesh provisionally approved the Right to Information Ordinance 2008 yesterday. The cabinet has sent back the draft law with suggestions for some changes. After making the changes the information ministry which initiated the move is expected to get the draft law vetted by the law ministry before placing it to the cabinet for final approval. When enacted, Bangladesh would become the seventy fifth country in the world to have such law...[full]

An article featuring on modernghana.com dated 24th June reads:

Members of Ghana Coalition on the Right to Information (RTI) on Tuesday, launched a 36-page book, which is a critique on the proposed Bill demanding an effective and clear-worded statute.
The Coalition, while acknowledging the recent review of the Bill by the Government Statute Law Commission, said “in our view there are still critical needs for further review to render the Bill in line with international best practice standards”.
They observed that although the current Bill tried to comply with some of these principles, there were still certain provisions that were not up to the required standards hence the need for the critique.
Professor Kwame Karikari, Executive Director, Media Foundation for West Africa, who launched the book at a two-day National Advocacy Training Conference for RTI Coalition members, said the review would enhance the full enjoyment of the right by the public when the law was enacted.
The RTI Critique also raised concerns about the procedure for accessing information under the Bill, which it considered was cumbersome...[full]

The Ghana Broadcasting Corporation wrote on the 23rd June:

A member of the National Coalition on the Rights to Information, Akoto Ampaw, says the conceptual and constitutional foundations on which the Rights to Information bill is premised include the sovereignty of the people in whose name and for whose welfare the powers of government are to be exercised. He said information in the hands of public bodies is held on behalf of the people and belongs to them as part of their fundamental human rights. Mr. Ampaw who is also the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee of the Ghana Bar Association was speaking at Aplaku near Accra during a National Advocacy Training conference for the coalition on the right to information in Ghana.

He noted that the bill would be instrumental in the effective participation in governance, accountability and probity in the public sphere as well as serve as a bulwalk against corruption and arbitrariness. But like almost all rights, the provisions in the bill are subject to certain limitations which are necessary for the protection of the public interest as well as the rights to freedoms of others. Mr. Ampaw said in line with the constitution, government is obliged to disclose information unless the harm that would be caused by disclosure clearly out weighs the benefit. He therefore called for attention to aspects of the bill such as timely access to information, a simple and limited free regime which will not pose an impediment to accessing information, the inclusion of private bodies whose activities impact on the rights and freedoms of others and sanctions against those who obstruct the exercise of the right to information...[full]

Moreover, an article featuring on modernghana.com read:

The Coalition on the Right to Information in Ghana at the weekend urged President John Agyekum Kufuor to ensure the passage of the bill to serve as a farewell legacy to round off the eight year administration of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP).
“Democracy thrives on transparency; therefore, open governance must be supported and extended at a practical level as an absolute priority, passing the right to information bill and implementing an effective access to information regime is a simple, but extremely useful, step towards entrenching good governance,” the RTI Coalition stated at a maiden National Advocacy Training Conference at Apraku, near Accra.
The Coalition also urges government to remove legislative and bureaucratic practices in the bill that would hinder the implementation of the right to information bill when passed into law.
The RTI Coalition noted that Ghana stands to benefit tremendously from the passage of the RTI bill as it would lead to open governance, with its associated anti-corruption focus, would make the country more attractive to outside investors. Open government and information sharing also contributes to national stability.
Serious implementation of the right to information bill will also immediately set new standards for bureaucratic and parliamentary accountability. Public officials will be forced to recognise that, they work for the people's interest and that the people have the right to scrutinise their activities, the Coalition noted.
The Coalition membership includes; Ghana National Association of Teachers (GNAT), Ghana Journalists Association, (GJA), Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives, Media Foundation for West Africa, Ghana Bar Association (GBA), Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD), Public Archives Administration and Records Department, and Third World Network.
Others are; Institute for Democratic Governance (IDEG), Ghana News Agency, (GNA), Ghana Medical Association (GMA), Ghana National Education Campaign Coalition, Amnesty International Ghana Section, Institute for Information and Development, Ghana Integrity International and Bawku Literary Initiatives.

1. Secrecy: privacy
2. Independent: without assistance from another person to choose and mark your choice.
3. Verification: being able to check how you voted after you have marked it.

Voting has become more accessible for people who are disabled, however, it remains unacceptably inaccessible for most people who are blind, deaf-blind, or partially sighted.  Most often, a template is offered, but this offers no means of verification. Blind people usually must depend on voting with another person to set up the template etc.. Braille ballots are sometimes available, but Braille is not used by over 80% of adult people who are blind.  Some jurisdictions are attempting alternative means of voting for the blind. These include using on-site computers with audio, tactile, sip and puff interfaces which make it possible for people who are blind or quadriplegic to vote independently. Electronic (Internet) voting is also being tried (Halifax's next municipal election will allow people to vote over the Net or with a cell phone and a pin number which they will receive in the mail). Intelivote Systems of Dartmouth NS is working to convince cities in Canada that electronic voting will increase voting stats, particularly with younger voters.  It also has environmental appeal. Me? I prefer the on-site buzz at the polls. BUT, I want to see the next provincial election here, to be fully accessible to me and others who have vision loss. I want the candidates to provide me and others who are partially sighted with their platform and  'pitch' in alternate formats. I want to go to the polls and be given an accessible list of candidates names on the ballot (in Braille, audio electronic or large print) and I want to vote ALONE, and to CHECK MY CHOICE on my ballot MYSELF before I put it in the box. Tomorrow, I meet with my MLA, Graham Steele and a representative from the Elections Nova Scotia. Hmm. 

PW: Thanks for taking the time to talk to me. I'm sorry you were sorely vexed by my blog postings.

Marleau: I didn't think what I wrote was so much expressing of vexation as expressing a response.

Q: There's several ways to come at it. I'll just put it right to you. You have come under some public criticism from Amir Attaran in the Globe and Mail; from Michel Drapeau in the open letter. They charge, essentially, that you are more concerned with the internal organization of your office than with holding to account a government that doesn't seem to take access seriously.

A: I would say to both of them that they are misguided in their interpretation of what I have done in the last year. First and foremost there was a requirement for an internal focus. The backlog, which I inherited, was unacceptable. And I have said this publicly to the Canadian Association of Journalists. It hasn't grown exponentially under me. As a matter of fact, if you look at the last four years the previous commissioner was in place, it's bigger then: 2700 cases over our 2100. But we're not going to get into a debate about statistics. The issue is, the status quo for the backlog is unacceptable. And so I've introduced a different approach. I want to introduce triage, not of complainants but of complaints. They don't seem to want to understand the distinction.
I'll give you an example. If you have someone who's on death row in the USA and has lawyers acting on his behalf and wants to extract information and has a complaint, versus a series of complaints trying to get at the snow-removal contracts let by Public Service Canada, I think there's an issue there. An issue of timeliness, fairness, urgency, all that sort of thing. Or if you're a frequent user of the system, versus a single one-time user of the system who has a real need under, say, a loss of rights, then there are issues there. So the triage system I'm putting in place is trying to bring more efficiency to the resolution of complaints.
You can't look at triage without looking at the early-resolution mechanism I've put in place, which first and foremost is trying to resolve it before it goes into investigation. The two go in tandem. In any case, it only started on June 1, give it a chance. See what happens. But something has to be done. It can't go on the way it is.
So I say they're misguided, that they're peremptory in their judgement. It's an attempt to deal with an issue that has plagued this office for the last decade or so.
As far as my being a lapdog of the prime minister, or not being the attack dog that the advocacy community wants me to be -- for now I'm an ombudsman. And there's a scale for an ombudsman in my view. There's a time to be aggressive and there's a time to be consultative, collaborative and cooperative. I'm supposed to mediate. I can't be shrill. I just can't be out there screaming reform and secrecy. Right now I think ATIA needs champions, both in the user community and in government institutions, but it doesn't need warlords.
There are challenges in the system. And I for one share their (Marleau's critics') frustration. This government has a posture on communications and pro-active disclosure which runs counter to the spirit of the statute. But I'm not responsible for the communications policy. Nor am I charged with any authority over how the government of the day communicates with Canadians. I wrote an article in the Globe and Mail at Christmas, joining in John Manley's report, that a fog over information serves nobody. More pro-active disclosure, the more you communicate to people, hopefully the less access requests there will be, the less complaints to my shop. But those who are waiting for an attack-dog commissioner will have to wait for the outcomes of what I can do because it's not normally my posture. There's a time to bite. There's a time to bark.  If all you do is bark, then after a while you don't hear the dog. I'm not saying you have to wag  your tail, but sometimes backing off gives you some results.
Accusations that I'm operating secretly? I mean, I told the parliamentary committee, I told the Canadian Association of Journalists that I would be doing this, that I would do the consultations, the round tables through the Public Policy Forum. I published it on my website. I published the results. I don't see that as being out of kind from my predecessors, nor do I see it as being a secret kind of approach to reform.

Q: While we're on that, you had that meeting last week. Did you have some take-aways from it?

A: It was a tremendous meeting, very high-level. Oddly enough we didn't talk very much about triage. I did not set the agenda. I set the framework. There were three parts: Modernization of the culture; modernization of the administration; modernization of the legislation. And Mr. Attaran attended and he came away better-informed and he made a good contribution at several levels. It was probably the highest-level discussion on the issues facing the ATIA in Canada that I've ever seen anywhere. I think people will be impressed with the report. I intend to file my own recommendation to Parliament in the fall in a special report. For me it was a sounding board to get a sense of both what people on the user side, the administrative side -- because I know some of the interested activists  out there took offense, apparently, that there were public servants in the room. They work with the law every day. There were users, there were administrators, and people in my shop who deal with complaints. And it was a very useful exercise. I'd do it again.

Q: While you're not barking, complaints are up 80 %. Largely because the ambit of the access regime has increased. There are more places where people can launch access requests and eventually complaints. So 80% is a lot. Take out the CBC, it's still 40%. What does that say about the day-to-day functioning of the access regime and the government's attitude?

A: I've tried to answer that a couple of times: it's just a little too soon to be definitive. We don't have the statistics under this government which will be available in the fall. We have the last set of usage statistics for 2006-2007. It covers part of the Harper regime and part of the Martin regime. We'll have, this year, the full picture on the full Harper period. Let's take the CBC out of it, let's say they're up 40%. Part of it is attributable to the fact that before, complainants had a full year to complain. Now they've got 60 days. What part of the 40% is attributable to that and an increase in requests, and an increase in complaints for non-compliance from the Harper government, I won't know until fall.
Anecdotally, it's taking longer than usual. Anecdotally, a lot of departments are automatically putting lengthy extensions on some of their requests. Like National Defence, 120 days. The Act wasn't designed for automatic extensions. It's designed for extensions against a specific request. The report cards I'm doing for the fall, which have been enhanced, will at least uncover some of these practices. Whereas the previous report cards only dealt with deemed refusals, which was essentially delays -- you didn't get a answer within 30 days. And in fact the report cards are a form of systemic investigation.

http://freedomscientific.com/fs_downloads/jaws.asp

 and download a FREE trial version of Jaws software. Learn to use it. Then turn your computer monitors OFF and navigate your own site using Jaws. Try the links, the documents, opening pages etc.  Have fun!

"How is it that a right to access information in 30 days can turn into a wait of years? Simply put, the federal government is exploiting a loophole."

The Globe and Mail, June 10, 2008

(click to embiggen)

Here's a table from Information Commissioner Robert Marleau's new report. Note the second section, for "commissioner-initiated systemic investigations." That's fancy talk for "the commissioner takes matters into his own hands and tries to figure out how the government handles inquiries in general." Note that Marleau's predecessor, John Reid, initiated almost 400 of those in his last year as commissioner. Note also that Marleau has launched zero during his first.

Alec Castonguay at Le Devoir is, as far as I can tell, the first reporter to notice this discrepancy. It's an odd thing, when you consider that formal complaints under the Access Act are up 80% this year over last. Two possible explanations:

(1) perhaps Marleau is simply swamped. The Tories' Accountability Act greatly extends the number of federal agencies and organizations that are now covered by the Access Act -- including Marleau's own office, and the CBC, which accounted for about half of this year's new complaints. (Which is to say, without the CBC finding its feet in a new access world, complaints would have been up "only" 40%.)

(2) perhaps Marleau is weirdly obsessed with changing the organization of his office and its work methods, to the exclusion -- temporarily, one devoutly hopes -- of actually making sure Canadians have access to information as the law requires. Frankly, a read of his report suggests this explanation is plausible. He does say, for instance, that he wants to incorporate systemic inquiries into a renewed department-by-department "report card" system. Next year. This apparently makes it OK to abandon one of his tools of inquiry while he plays with org charts.

In any case, you know how governments of every stripe sometimes complain about excessive zeal on the part of officers of parliament? This one has found no reason to complain about Robert Marleau.

• I want books made available to me in any format I choose: audio, Braille, electronic and large print.
• I like audio books. The publishing industry needs to realize that the audio version of ANY BOOK PUBLISHED must be released simultaneously in audio format. If that means forcing the Canadian government to amend copyright and publishing legislation, that is what we must all support. 
• Audio books must be unabridged....I don't like half a book.
• Release the stranglehold you have on independent  multiple format information producers in Canada. They are the answer to filling the gap by providing multiple format information; Braille transcription, audio books, etc.
• Provide accessible technology within the library; computers with screen-reading software, scanners, braille printers, CCTV's, etc.
• Someone needs to know how to use, troubleshoot, and teach the use of all of the above equipment. 
• Make your catalogue accessible within the library. IE. I can use your website at home to search for something, but once I'm in your library, I am unfortunately forced to rely on your staff.
• Update your large print collections. People across the country are complaining about small, outdated, and dog-eared LP books collections. Put your large print collection in an area with good lighting.
• Your audio books must have Braille and large print labeling.  I want to  'browse' the books like other patrons. As it is now, I must rely on a staff person to be available to read the titles and descriptions for me.
• Libraries are big on displaying community information. the bulletin boards, notices, guides, pamphlets must be made available to everyone. How about an information line linked into your phone system? Tweak a grant or student placement to provide for  conversion of  information pamphlets and guides into audio, Braille and large print.
• Sometimes, your accessible computer is nowhere near the reference materials. Ensure easier physical access to this technology.
• Train your staff and employees to be 'sensitive' (I hate that term) to the needs of blind and partially sighted patrons.
• Blind students have a hard time finding accessible  research materials in a timely manner. It is not up to the 'charitable library' (AKA CNIB)  to provide everything. (they do a poor job anyway). Publishers, particularly of textbooks must realize that audio/electronically-generated information often ignores describing or interpreting  graphs, scales diagrams, photographs and tables. This information is critical if education is to fair and equitable. 

I've just started a list. I hope to hear from others. 

During the 1990s he routinely represented public-sector institutions (respondents) in freedom of information appeals, but Guy now acts exclusively for requesters, helping them to exercise their rights to obtain government records under freedom of information/access to information legislation.

Ooh! Ooh! Let's call it Bikergate!
At least one B.C. columnist isn't ready to let Maxime Bernier off the hook just yet.

"You're darn right" the Foreign Affairs Minister's girlfriend is "our business," an unusually combative Barbara Yaffe argues in the Vancouver Sun, because "he must be—and be seen to be—above reproach in all things." (We double-checked—she is indeed talking about Mr. Bernier.) Other than this sudden appearance of fallability, the only "concern" she raises is his—by which she presumably mean Julie Couillard's—access to sensitive information. So, security checks for Cabinet Ministers' significant others would be a good idea, right? Nope! "The only thing required to regulate these matters is ordinary good judgment and a watchful prime minister," she contends. Problem is, the nation's "ordinary good judgment" has pretty much declared this a non-issue, so we'd say the burden's on Yaffe to make the case. It doesn't help when Couillard has "pretty significant links to biker gangs" in the sixth paragraph but is only "connected—however circuitously and remotely—to members of an outlaw gang" in the 18th.

The Globe and Mail's Lawrence Martin is unconvinced that RCMP Commissioner William Elliott misspoke when he announced the creation of a new position, Assistant Deputy Minister Public Affairs, which would effectively have amounted to "having the government vet [the Mounties'] communications." As a "former ADM himself (for Transport Canada)," Martin argues, Elliott "is well aware of the position's significance." More to the point, such a move would be entirely in character for this government. "A more likely explanation is that the plan … had been put in place by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day and the Prime Minister's Office," Martin concludes, and was snuffed when fears arose that it would touch off a firestorm of protest."

Canadians looking for price relief at the gas pumps may as well resort to prayer, the National Post's John Ivison advises, since the Conservatives have pitched all their bright ideas over the side since being elected. They promised to stop charging GST on the excise tax on gasoline, he notes, "and to drop the GST completely when prices exceeded 85¢ a litre." They promised to eliminate the 1.5 cent-per-litre "deficit elimination tax," which remains in place "a decade after the budget was balanced." It will be no surprise, he warns, if Canadians are cool to Stéphane Dion's assurances that his carbon tax won't just be revenue neutral, but won't raise the price of gasoline.

Southeast Asian bureau
"For the world's benefit as well as its own," the Toronto Star's James Travers argues, "Canada should maximize historic China ties extending from Norman Bethune to early diplomatic recognition." In the coming decades, after all, "progress in too many sad and dangerous places"—Zimbabwe, Darfur, Burma, etc.—will be "impossible" without China's engagement. With trademarked convolution, he argues that the government's decision to instead "tug the dragon's tail" is linked to our military focus on Afghanistan, which is itself a result of "cloning Washington's foreign policy," which makes it "more problematic … for this country to contribute to Middle East peace" (when did we do that again?) or push China to do good instead of bad. For our part, we see no reason Canada couldn't stay the course in Afghanistan and improve relations with China.

"Not knowing for sure if Canada's relief will ever reach the victims has given the government some cause to tread cautiously before unleashing a full emergency aid effort" in Burma, the Calgary Herald's Don Martin concedes. But that alone, he argues, cannot justify the chasm between the hundreds of millions committed to tsunami relief efforts in 2005 and the piddling amount thus far pledged to cyclone relief.

The Globe's Margaret Wente suggests the best way to solve the problem of blameless Chinese anglers suffering racial abuse at the hands of small-town Ontario yobs would be to "translate the fishing regulations into Chinese" to weed out those anglers who are violating the law; "hire more conservation officers to enforce" the regulations across the board; "post some cops at prime spots on the lakes"; and "bust the stores that sell live illegal fish." But she's no expert, she hastens to add, and unlike the Ontario Human Rights Commission, she has no "empire to build." Hence, the actual solution: "police helicopter patrols along our shores, as well as the concerted action of armies of teachers, mayors, anti-racism trainers and bureaucrats from every nook and cranny of government."

Kabul, and future Kabuls
Sun Media's Greg Weston accuses the Prime Minister of "re-announcing an already re-announced military strategy and calling it a 20-year strategy for the Canadian Forces." Furthermore, he alleges that the promised funding boosts run below inflation, and the promised troop increases are such that "the ranks [may] actually shrink relative to the overall Canadian population." Even furthermore, he continues, it's impossible to predict what our military is going to be doing in 2028—who would have envisioned in 1988, for example, that we'd be up to our ankles in Afghanistan? Thus, says Weston, what we need is some vision of "Canada's military role in the world could and should be over the next 20 years." On that front, unfortunately, we got bupkis.

The Star's Rosie DiManno undertakes the impossible task of determining, from Kabul, just what US Marines have done and are doing in Helmand province, where they are tasked with "choking off Garmser"—a district that "has long been used as a planning, staging and logistics hub by the neo-Taliban." Estimates of the number of families displaced, she notes, range from two to 4,200. "In the present vacuum of information," she concludes, this is what passes for fact.

Republicans, and Democrats, in trouble
The Globe's John Ibbitson notes that Democrat Travis Childers' win in Mississippi's First Congressional District, a formerly "rock-ribbed Republican bastion," comes on the heels of similar shockers in Illinois and Louisiana. As such, he says, the GOP is finally becoming aware of the looming threat of electoral catastrophe. So they launched a new platform—tagline: "The change you deserve." "The blogosphere caught it first," Ibbitson writes. The slogan "is also the trademarked slogan of the drug Effexor. It's an antidepressant."

"What Hillary [Clinton] has done … is split the Democratic party in a way that it's not been divided before," Peter Worthington argues in the Toronto Sun. "The Democrats traditionally get the African-American vote—but not in the 90% range that Obama is getting them," he notes, adding that this fervent support risks a "backlash" among black voters if Clinton were somehow to win the nomination. At the same time, however, Clinton has vastly more appeal to "the average voter with a high school education whose fingernails dirty at his job and who can't afford vacations abroad." And especially after West Virginia, she can credibly pitch uncommitted superdelegates on the idea "that she has the broadest support across America and has the most competitive chance of beating McCain."

Duly noted
Parti Québécois supporters unhappy with Pauline Marois' leadership had their chance in this week's by-elections to protest by abstaining, says the Montreal Gazette's Don MacPherson, or by voting for "the minor sovereignist parties, left-wing Québec solidaire or the new, hardline Parti indépendantiste." That didn't happen; indeed, he declares Québec solidaire effectively "dead." And with the Action démocratique thoroughly humiliated by the results, he opines, Marois has cemented not just her leadership of the party, but her party's position as the real alternative to the Liberals.

Alison at the Beav notes that the RCMP has stripped several key details from the Robert Dziekanski TASER™ report, recently obtained by The Canadian Press and CBC under the Access to Information Act:

Missing from the RCMP report :
1) Dziekanski's name [!]
2) the name and rank of the officer who fired the TASER™
3) the name of his supervisor
4) details about the duration of the firing
5) the number of times the weapon was used in stun mode
6) whether Dziekanski was armed
7) a written summary of the incident
8) "assessments as to whether use of the TASER™ helped the RCMP either "avoid use of lethal force" or "avoid injuries to subject or Police."

In other words, pretty much everything of use for the general public to understand exactly what happened (and, more importantly, why), all purportedly redacted in order to to protect the late Mr. Dziekanski's "privacy".

Yeah. To protect [redacted]'s privacy--sure. As Alison further notes,

It's worth remembering that none of these inquiries would be happening at all had not Paul Pritchard of Victoria first recorded Dziekanski's murder, stood his ground and hired a lawyer to get the recording back from the RCMP on being told it might be several years before they would return it, and then released it to the public.
Previous to Pritchard's YouTube going worldwide, the RCMP were already covering their tracks, muttering darkly about the likelihood of Dziekanski being a drug mule and how the officers were forced to use stun guns because the room was crowded with airline passengers.

Sorry--after all that's gone down with regards to Dziekanski's death, a hubris-laden request from the Feds that basically amounts to "hey, trust us" doesn't fucking cut it. The only way to clear up the haze of corruption that has been hovering over the Mounties for far too many years now is for the government to call for a full public inquiry into the activities of the RCMP. Are you finally listening, Stockboy?

Recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers

Carole Lavallée moved, — That Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the parliamentary Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics report to the House as its 6th report that it:

• deplores the fact that, at the request of Treasury Board, as of April 1 2008 officials are no longer updating the Coordination of Access to Information Requests System (CAIRS), a central database for all requests filed with the government under the Access to Information Act; and

• demands that the Conservative government reinstate this tool, which promotes transparency and accountability; and

• encourages the Conservative government to make this database available online and free of charge.

The question was put on the motion and the results of the vote was announced: YEAS: 5; NAYS: 5.

Whereupon, the Chair voted in the affirmative.

Accordingly, the motion was agreed to.

Like none of it meant anything in the first place?

Basically now the Liberals are just doing random things to fill their days. I hear tomorrow they're going to lead QP with a hymn sing and a game of Pictionary.

First and foremost, thanks to those who are behind the Top 100 Mindanao Blogs of 2007.

Nakatunga nalang ang 2008, ayha pa ko naka comment ani. I’m trying to convince myself that it’s “Better late than never!”

I am glad that Istambay sa Mindanao was included in the list, despite being stagnant most of the time.

Blogging has good prospects but my new work terrain here in Bukidnon required realigning priorities.

After publishing 32 issues of our weekly local newspaper Central Mindanao Newswatch, I have mixed reactions. I am both happy and sad.

I am happy because of the things that we have started and are now starting to bear fruit.

We have tried to expand coverage with more stories on business, culture, livelihood, local governance, education, sports, justice and the voices of the marginalized.

In the past it has been mostly on crime and violence and the top stories in the province.

Now, we are also improving our “follow up” stories so our readers would get a chance to be updated of the week’s top stories.

Aside from covering more fields, we are also working on expanding the range of the points of view that we take. The easiest to manage is the chief of police, the mayor, and the board members among other “official sources.”

Now we want to give more space and effort to “unofficial” sources; which include the grassroots sectors such as farmers, small and medium entrepreneurs, teachers, among other people.

In line with this, we have launched the column “Voice of the People”, the paper’s section for contributors.

All in all, we intend to provide more local content to the local newspaper and try to make a dent in democracy (lofty, lofty!).

Honestly, we want to reinvent the local newspaper in order to survive. We are faced with a big number of concerns.
One thing that makes me sad is the biting reality of poor advertisement and subscription. Street sales are also down.

Some of our field personnel suggested we might as well show lotto numbers, more violence, gossip and filth/sex in our weekly issues. That’s what our tabloid competitors have done.

Radio is of course the number one threat.

We have to continuously search for ways to reinvent ourselves with our very limited resources.

There is only one reporter now and a few part-time sales personnel.

We have tried to strike a balance in maximizing our resources to come up with more local content and the need to come out on-time. It is discouraging at times. The other day I met our circulation man and he told me another subscriber, a courier, has subscribed to the smut newspaper from Cagayan de Oro.

It just struck me and was there pinned in my seat thinking what more efforts we could pull off to improve more.

While other journalists discuss about their experiences as online or mobile journalists, with all the modern gadgets they had since time, I am quite stuck here trying to make both ends meet --- how to deliver good local news and other content on time.

Quite a gloomy picture, but I see some bright lights ahead.

Still, we are lucky that we still have a big room to navigate through --- more improvements but without intending to compromise truth, professionalism and relevance.

What is a value? The Free Dictionary defines a value as "a principle, standard, or quality considered worthwhile or desirable". This is as good a definition as any. In reality, a value is something that is held in high regard or esteem by an institution or individual. Values drive anything that an institution or individual does whether they are stated or unstated.

In committing to a set of values the Williamsburg Regional Library is declaring the institutional basis for its programs and services.

The current Williamsburg Regional Library strategic plan lists seven core values. They are :

• We value free and confidential access to information.
• We value all residents in our community.
• We value a literate community.
• We value strength found in diversity.
• We value our staff.
• We value ethical, fiscally responsible stewardship of public resources.
• We value working cooperatively with groups in our community.

In this post I will briefly discuss the first four of these values, leaving the last three for a later post.

We value free and confidential access to information - The Library's mission statement indicates "free access to information is a foundation of democracy". In fulfilling our mission statement the Library supports the right of residents to select the information appropriate for their individual needs. Access to this information is not restricted, except where required by law, and the library through its confidentiality policy and procedures ensures that this access will be remain private.

We value all residents in our community - The Library pledges to provide each individual with courteous, respectful, and friendly service. We value individuals input regarding all that we do. I enjoy receiving "Ask the Director" Comment Cards and have had many delightful (and to be honest, some not so delightful) discussions with individuals as a result. As we look into future revisions of our strategic plan this value may be clarified to define community to being the residents of our funding jurisdictions. As recent events have shown, the Library is not able to provide full service to non-residents of our funding jurisdictions.

We value a literate community - As our strategic plan indicates, "Literacy is important to the successful functioning of a democratic society". It is also essential to the successful operation of a public library. Without literate users, libraries cease to exist. Through all our programs, services and collections the Library promotes lifelong literacy. One of my community services, as mentioned in an earlier post, is serving on the board of a local adult literacy provider. This service has given me an increased awareness of the value of literacy to both individuals and society at large.

We value strength found in diversity - Our community is a diverse community embracing many cultures, values, and lifestyles. The adult literacy provider mentioned above had as students in the past year individuals from 50 countries speaking 32 different languages. Each summer brings many international student workers to the library on a regular basis. Through personal interactions with the many members of our community we are enriched and become a stronger and more vital institution.

So long for now!

I usually do not write that often... mainly because I have so little time to myself, spending hours on the road going from one client to another. But, today, I have a break (sort of!) since Jenn and Dave are writing their SLE test. I am kind of hyper, waiting for them to update me on how they did... so I decided to keep my mind busy and focus on something else. Hopefully, this way, time will fly and I will worry less!

What will happen if they fail? Well... they will not have any other choice than going back to be re-tested in one month! In the meanwhile their training contract will be extended (something that rejoices the Language Schools!)... I have seen people spending almost two years away from their jobs in full time training: enough to discourage even the bravest warrior!

Here is how the system works... three or seven days after civil servants have been tested (writing and reading), they receive an official letter with their marks (e.g. 49/65) and the level they obtained (B). If the latter is not the one required for their job position, they are invited to apply for another testing date (it may take more than a month, depending on the monthly date tests are updated: they cannot re-write the same tests). At no time, they can refer to the tests they wrote and there is no document of any kind to give them feedback. Consequently they are in the dark, as well as the individuals in charge of their training. For some inexplicable reasons, those tests are unavailable (even under the Law on ATI) as if they were classified TOP SECRET although they do not content any threat to national security!

On the other hand, there is no such fuss regarding access to tapes. When they are assessed on their oral skills, the whole interview is recorded on tape. When they get their results, if they ever failed, they receive a document pointing out their weaknesses so they know exactly what to focus and work on to make sure they will pass next time. If they wish, they can book an appointment with their trainer/teacher and, together, they can listen to the tape and "see" where the interview went wrong. They are not allowed to take notes but, at least, they know what they have to improve in order to achieve their level.

I do not see why something similar could not be arranged for those who wish to learn from their mistakes in previous writing/reading exams. Of course, I am not suggesting that they get their copies back! This would degenerate into the biggest smuggling in the History of Canada! I just can imagine government employees distributing (or even selling) copies of those tests to the ones scheduled to write within the same month! Although I am not convinced it would help since no one can memorize 65 questions and long texts... yet it would give a pretty good idea on the type of questions asked!

Actually, access to their tests could follow the same procedure as access to their tapes... People could request an appointment with their trainer/teacher and sit in a room with plenty of time to go through the whole tests. It would definitely ease the training process and... the pain! But it seems nobody cares! The Government certainly does not... the civil servants adopted the attitude of defeatism and... the schools? They are not interested in accelerating the process because they are in this business for the $$$... More often their students fail, longer the contracts are... they have no interest in blowing the whistle and seeing their profits decrease! I do think differently... I do not run a school, I do not make my living based upon volume... I built my professional reputation on quality and results... and anything that could help me to target specific needs for a specific goal would be more than appreciated!

I think I do know why access to their tests is denied... first because I suspect no one ever really asked for such access. Unless hundreds (or perhaps even thousands) of civil servants push the issue, I do not believe anyone else has interest to make those tests available. Those who design the tests would not want people starting to file grievances or ask for a review of their tests because they found mistakes : imagine someone like Jenn (and many others) who missed her level by 2 answers having access to her test... based upon the previous tests content, we assume there are potentially enough mistakes (I included some in my post A Breath-taking Plunge into Hades) for her to be able to have her results modified! Such access could provoke unwanted reactions among civil servants, but also among the Public... nothing like this stays secret for very long and, then, the Press would make sure every single Canadian who pays income tax is fully aware... after all, who is paying for this massive training?... No Governement (previous, present or future) would want such a far-reaching possible scandal... Let's be realistic here: not all Canadians agree on the Official Languages Law and Policies... something like that would only give them ammunition...

But... whatever the reason is, under the Law on the Access to Information, every single civil servant who fails SLE tests has the right to ask! The question is: who will be brave enough to ask first???...

According to the Globe and Mail, the Information Commissioner has received more complaints about the CBC than any other federal department or agency in the 2007-2008 period.  Most of the complaints apparently deal with delays in response time.  (Under the rules, federal bodies must generally reply withint 30 days.)  The Commissioner adds that most of the complaints are valid.

But the most intriguing aspect of this story, is almost all of the 536 complaints have come from an unnamed single source.  This has triggered a firestorm of speculation about the identity of the complainant...from the Conservative Party to the Canadian Media Guild to CBC's competition.

Personally, I think it's someone or some group wanting to know the cost of each of Don Cherry's understated sports jackets.