The War on Information Continues.

It has been revealed that in addition to the 'consolidation' of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans libraries, where reports say that despite assurances that much of the material would be digitized a large number of books and papers have been destroyed without such backup, the Libraries of Heath Canada are now under attack.


The CBC reports that Health Canada scientists are so concerned about losing access to their research library that some are squirrelling away journals and books in their garages for colleagues to consult. This after a report calling for the libraries to NOT be closed was rejected as 'flawed' (i.e. Not the answer that was required) and the library's collection was moved to the National Science Library and the inter-library loan functions were outsourced to a private company.


"Staff requests have dropped 90 per cent over in-house service levels prior to the outsource. This statistic has been heralded as a cost savings by senior HC [Health Canada] management," the report said.
"However, HC scientists have repeatedly said during the interview process that the decrease is because the information has become inaccessible — either it cannot arrive in due time, or it is unaffordable due to the fee structure in place."

'If you want to justify closing a library, you make access difficult and then you say it is hardly used.'— Dr. Rudi Mueller, retired Health Canada pathologist

There is little doubt that most newer material will be available 'on line' however there has been no massive injection of resources to digitized historical reports and other material or to make such openly available. Obviously those most affected by these changes are very concerned and feel that the material is in danger of being 'disappeared'.

"One group moved its 250 feet of published materials to an employee's basement. When you need a book, you email 'Fred,' and 'Fred' brings the book in with him the next day," the consultant wrote in his report.
The report said the number of in-house librarians went from 40 in 2007 to just six in April 2013.
"Knowledgeable and expert librarians and archivists are invaluable resources in helping you find what you want,"
"So they [Health Canada] are not just closing physical collections of books. They are getting rid of the guides to those collections."

We all know that reference material is increasingly being accessed 'online' and scientific 'papers' are usually now published on line but not all are, and we are a long way from having the historical material all available from our computers. I would think that our research libraries would need more staff not less to enable them to scan this historical stuff to electronic media. Even that is little scary if said records are in a government controlled database give our current regimes predilection to historical revision and scientific denial.


When this regime talks about access to information they mean access to propaganda issued by themselves and the destruction of any factual information that does not coincide with their narrow view of the world. Make no mistake the attack upon knowledge is an attack upon democracy both of which have been severely compromised by these ideological oligarchs.




Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Best of Both Worlds

A guest article by Jared Milne.

Politically, 2013 wasn’t much different than previous years. In Toronto, Rob Ford accused his opponents of wanting to keep the “gravy train” going, while his opponents accused him of hypocrisy and failing to live up to his promises. In Ottawa, the Conservative government accused the opposition parties of wanting to drastically raise taxes to pay for their political promises, while the official Opposition accused the Conservatives of slashing essential services and transfers to Canadians. In St. Albert, critics of the city government’s current direction stated that our current level of spending is unsustainable, while people satisfied with the current direction accused the critics of wanting to eliminate many of the services we’ve come to rely on as residents.
By itself, there’s nothing wrong with these types of debates. They’re what democracy is supposed to be all about. However, what risks happening is that public opinion becomes polarized between one option or the other. We can either pay very few taxes and get very little in the way of services, or we can have very good services but have to pay through the nose for them. Anyone who wants to see good services is automatically accused of wanting to jack income taxes up to 80 or 90 percent, while anyone who wants to see taxes and spending cut is accused of wanting to slash and burn public services.
What I don’t get is why it has to be an all-or-nothing thing. Who says we only have to have a highly taxed welfare state, or a radically laissez-faire society? Why can’t we recognize the benefits of both government programs and private enterprise? Sometimes taxes or spending might need to be increased, while at other times they could be cut.
In 2014 and beyond, we could probably all benefit by defining how far we think things should go. What level of public ownership, environmental regulations and social spending would conservatives be willing to accept, for instance? What limits would progressives be willing to accept on business regulations, income taxation or social spending? By more clearly defining just how far different groups are willing to take these policies, it becomes that much more difficult for the worst and most polarizing voices among us to accuse people of wanting to take things too far.
Canada has never thrived solely through government action or through private enterprise. Rather, Canada has come as far as it has through a healthy balance of government action and private business, of individual initiatives and collective action. Of course taxes can sometimes be too high, and regulations can be too much of a hassle. When that happens, they can and should be reduced. But they are not inherently bad in and of themselves, as they’ve helped set up the social, physical and environmental infrastructure we take for granted today.
In 2014, and beyond, we as Canadians could all benefit from more clarity and discussion, and more of a search for the common ground that exists, than we have in past years.
This article was originally published in the St. Albert Gazette on January 1, 2014 and can be found online at http://www.stalbertgazette.com/article/20140101/SAG0903/301019997/the-best-of-both-worlds. 
 
Jared Milne is a writer, researcher and public servant living in St. Albert, Alberta. His major interests including Canadian unity, nationalism and history, particularly regarding how Canada's incredibly rich past has affected the present we live in today.


Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers

Response to Minister of Democratic Reform

Just two days before Christmas the GPC received a letter requesting a response on their ideas for electoral reform to be received before Jan 4^th. The timing of the letter and the requested response makes the genuineness of the request suspect. We wonder who else was or will be invited to respond and what their response was or will be. Despite the almost impossible time line Elizabeth May of the Greens did reply with several much needed suggestions. Here is her response in full:-
Dear Mr. Minister,

The President of the Green Party of Canada, Paul Estrin, received a scanned letter from you just before Christmas, on December 23, 2013.  The letter itself was undated, but requested Green Party proposals for changes to the Elections Act to be received by January 4, 2014.  

As you can imagine, due to the holidays, this was challenging.  A copy of this letter on stationery will reach you by Monday.  I certainly look forward to meeting with you to discuss options. 

For now, I am submitting our proposals by email.
The crisis in declining voter turn-out and citizen engagement should concern all political leaders.  Over the course of this fall’s prorogation, I held a series of town hall sessions in locations across Canada on the theme of “Saving Democracy from Politics.”  The encouraging news is that in nearly every location, from Dawson City to Halifax to Vancouver to Winnipeg, the meetings were packed.  Hundreds of people showed up in most cities. In Toronto, the Hart House event, sadly, had as many people leaving disappointed as were able to fit in the room.
I share this experience as I see it as confirmation that there is an appetite for public discussion on how we can rescue democracy.  As I mentioned to you when we attended an event in your riding during Ramadan in July 2013, I urge you to take your process “on the road” to meet with as many Canadians as possible.
While the reasons for declining voter turn-out are complex and multi-faceted, nevertheless some common themes emerge. I would like to set out a few of the policy changes that the Green Party believes would improve the health of our democracy.  
1.     Move away from First Past the Post so that every vote counts.  New Zealand made the transition most recently and their process would be worthy of study for possible application to Canada, as both share Westminster  Parliamentary system within a constitutional monarchy.
2.     Repeal the changes to the Elections Act requiring government issued photo ID in order to be allowed to vote.  These changes have resulted in voters within certain groups (students, seniors, First Nations, the homeless) being denied their franchise. Our problem in Canada is not voter fraud (people voting more than once); it is people voting less than once.
3.     Eliminate television advertising by political parties – both outside and within writ periods. This is done in many countries around the world (the UK, Brazil , Belgium, Switzerland, to name a few).  The attack ad is used as a form of voter suppression. It is not possible to ban certain types of messages; ad hominem attack ads are hard to control through censorship. What other countries have done prevents the most invasive form of ad-  the television message that hits voters between the eyes when home and watching the Stanley Cup, for example.  Other countries mandate all broadcasters to provide equal access to free public service messages, explaining the party’s platforms.
4.     Remove the requirement for the Leader’s signature on the nomination forms for candidates, to eliminate a tool of coercion on Members of Parliament and candidates, as proposed in Michael Chong’s private members bill, as well as in my own.  Allowing MPs to better speak for their constituents will increase citizen engagement and voter turn-out.
5.     Restore the per vote subsidy, at any level.  For many voters, knowing that any amount of financial support went to the party of their choice was an incentive to vote.
6.     Pursue proposals from Queens University Centre for the Study of Democracy to improve the campaign debates by holding more debates and reducing the focus only on leaders by holding debates involving ministers and Shadow Cabinet Critics put forward by Opposition Parties. More exposure to issues should increase public awareness of issues in elections and increase engagement.  
I appreciate your willingness to consider some of these reforms as you embark on a critical exercise. I wish you the best of luck and the height of wisdom. 

Sincerely, 

Elizabeth May, O.C.
Member of Parliament for Saanich-Gulf Islands
A copy of the Ministers undated letter and the above reply may be viewed here.


It should come as no surprise that the Cons are less than enthusiastic about citizens or opposition views on this and that they have come out against Ms Mays first suggestion before even reading it:-
A Conservative pamphlet declares "Conservatives say NO to proportional representation" and suggests that it is to be rejected equally with Tom Mulcair and Elizabeth May. The pamphlet claims that "Our country was founded on the principle of Equality of Ridings first and foremost."
Equality of Ridings?


Her other suggestions are all good and I am sure that given a more appropriate time and open method of getting the Ministers attention there will be much more to be said on this by both the GPC, the opposition (we would hope) and the general public. However I do wonder about her suggestion to ban TV advertising by political party in that it is a given that the Harper Regime will (and has) simply put out partisan propaganda in the name of the government 'informing Canadians', we all know how much respect some political partys have for following the rules.


We wonder did the Libs or NDP get a similar letter? Did they respond in time? What was their response? Will others be invited to have input? Will the public have a chance to make suggestions? Is the Minister even interested in the responses or just playing politics with this? Let us know your thoughts.
Support Democracy - Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers