Shwa

Their websites are decent enough and I don't have a problem using them. Now that they seem to be coordinating content, the usability factor should improve. Depends on what you want. Some departments will give you the information informally. Others will refer you to their publications departments. Sometimes you might have to go to their library or get their materials through inter-library loan. Archival material works this way, but you might have to visit the National Archives to access some data. It's still old school, but most of it you can see. If you have the will to do so. At any rate, those reports hit a records office and if you know what you want, you can access it. Providing it is classified to be public... Well that is a large resource isn't it? And the more requests, the more people to vet them. I agree that vast amounts of information could be dumped on the internet with little or no negative effect. But I am sure that even you would want to know the risks of doing so. It isn't a matter of semantics, is is a matter of precise definition when referring to information held by the Government of Canada. Sure, but consolidating data centres, revamping communications infrastructure (and increasing it in rural and northern areas), etc., takes time and resources. I think the Feds are already working towards this. Not really. Once again: its all there if you look and seriously want it.

Don't they have to be asked a question first? What laws have the courts created? Name a few so we can examine them.

Egads man, now you are intentionally being idiotic. I merely qualified your generalization to illustrate the limited application of your assertion. Wrong again son. The National Defence Act refers to the Canadian Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as the authority. In fact, "illegal drugs" isn't even mentioned in the National Defence Act. You would have known this had you even taken a simple glance at the Act. Nope. Workplace policy, such as the Queens Regulations and Orders ultimately submits to Canadian law because it isn't law. Nope. Because you failed to read the National Defence Act and thus have no clue as to what you are talking about. Thus a CF member, dismissed for the use of drugs, is not charged under any Canadian law. So tell me, exactly what order makes illegal drug use illegal in the QROs?

Hockey Night in Canada (or hockey games in general. CFL, CIS, CFB, NFL, boxing. Toronto Rock when I can get the games.) CityTV News including BT, although I do admit to watching morning CP24 for Lindsey Deluce and Melissa Grelo. The CBC Documentary Channel, sometimes The Nature of Things. Murdoch Mysteries. SNL, The Office, Corner Gas re-runs when I can. Most PBS documentary shows, but especially Nova, The History Detectives, everything by Ken Burns and the odd British archaeological show. Antiques Roadshow, all versions. Terra Nova looks good as does Falling Skies on Showcase. I used to watch Discovery, NG Channel and History Channel regularly, but lately they have sucked so I don't bother with them much.

The government websites are pretty informative, wouldn't you agree? To making people aware of the goals, results and resources of their particular portfolio I mean. It's public. For certain awareness issues, the government spends money of advertising campaigns, but how far do you go? Eventually, the awareness should be the responsibility of the people themselves. Hence, ATIP. But ATIP has to answer to someone, even the Auditor General does. But I am not talking about strictly the democratic politics of government, I am talking the internal career politics of bureaucrats as well, including the Privacy Commissioners office or the office of the Auditor General. Well, for one, I doubt a couple years as a student in a records office would qualify you to generalize about the informational ability of the rest of the bureaucracy, even though I suspect you might be right. Secondly, services, service levels and costs are available through canada.gc.ca or through ATIP. No, but the point is that someone has to think about the information and whether it fits the definition of secret, protected, classified, etc. That information requires an ATIP request does not equate to it being kept secret. Come one now, drop that one. However, in some cases - likely a large part of them - ATIP requests of your type require some sort of analysis and may require the gathering of data from several sources. I can tell you - well, at last look - the Federal Government simple does not have the technical resources available to put everything on-line. And now, not just usability - accessibility, proper language, proper format, etc. Yep, you have to dig deep which might be an incentive to reward those who are actually serious about the issue. And in an economic downturn, even longer. Although with Shared Services Canada, the consolidation of Federal Government datacentres might be able to offer a nice side benefit for information access to the public. But that only concerns electronic data that isn't personal.

It doesn't. It only prohibits drug use for members of the Canadian Forces. So you are wrong on that count. Secondly, the penalties for contravention of those regulations are agreed upon by the member, when he or she accepts membership in that sector of employment, in effect, a workplace policy. So you are wrong on that count too. See what I mean? Easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel. It doesn't and you cannot cite a single case in Canadian law which shows someone charged with "illegal drug use" because there is no such law. If you can, I am sure you would have by now. Instead you keep on reaching. And reaching... And reaching further still. Don't have proof of your assertion BC? Didn't think so.

I am not questioning the legality of it. Admit that it is also democratic and you might have a point. Unless you are sticking to a coalition, formed as a result of a non-confidence vote in Parliament, is anti-democratic.

Nope. Because "use" is not against the law, even though it is specified in workplace policy, some of which have the effect of law in that workplace. The only thing being refuted as you and quite easily I might add. You either provide cases where CF members were dismissed for drug "use" and their subsequent charge under the Criminal Code of Canada for that "use" while they were members of the CF and you might have a point. You can't? Didn't think so.

So to be "democratic" in our parliamentary system, is must be mentioned in an "election campaign" as opposed to, say, a vote of non-confidence in Parliament? Is this what you are saying to qualify a coalition as "democratic?"

Then it should be no problem for you to provide case examples where someone, who was dismissed as a member of the Canadian Forces for soley using drugs, was charged with drug "use" when they reverted to civilian status. Take your time. I'll wait for you to gather your case examples.

I can agree to that. A little simplistic, but sure. This is already done with the federal government, more or less, to a practical degree. This isn't open government in the electronic sense, it is a de-politicized bureaucracy correct? That will never happen in our lifetime. Does the data already exist though? How familiar are you with a working government? Some operational data could be secret, or on a need to know basis. For example, data that could be used for insider-trading or contravene trade secrets. Would you be willing to expose this sort of information to the public? How about you show us the failed or denied access to information request first. Obviously, you believe it exists and, not being secret, should be available. At this point ATI is the current method of accessing such data.

Yeah OK. Because coalition governments in a parliamentary system are so "anti-democratic."

Ironically, just down the street is a big Chinese restaurant - the Mandarin.

CR has Oshawa confused with Peterborough. Shwatonians may be a little skeptical from time to time, but if one thing is certain not only do we love foreigners, we especially love their food!

State your case. No it doesn't. "Secret" is a designation of information sensitivity and no matter how "open" the government is, you won't be seeing secret information unless you are a senior bureuacrat or government official with a need to know. Other senstive levels of information will not be put out on the Internet and how that information is designated is, by and large, a matter of politics or political expediency. Any other lowly classified or unclassified information is already available from every single government department and agency through the Access to Information and Privacy Act.

An interesting turn of phrase for one who advocates for "open government." What has happened over the past 20 years is the movement of government services to the electronic medium and the reduction of in-person 'face-to-face' locations for all kinds of services.

It is performance pay and has been around in the public service executive class for as long as I can remember. They are renumerated by achieving certain goals, usually yearly, based on - usually - some legislative or policy initiative. It isn't anything new and executives have gotten bonuses for staff reduction programs in the past. What a smart top level executive will do is offer early retirement packages to staff and easily attain the 10% cut required. Afterall, millions in early retirement packages to public service staff is less than billions. I hope our esteemed MLW neocons remember this math when the time comes...

I take it from this lesson that you either currently work, or have worked, in the federal government. Pretty spot on lesson! You did forget to mention the liberal use of such words as 'efficiencies' 'effectiveness' and the good old 'world class' phrase. But I imagine in this round of cuts, those are merely anachronisms now...

Oh. You just lay off poor Bruce Carson now. Dontchya know he is a good Samaritan in disguise and often simply misunderstood? To read more of the MLW hilarity on Bruce Carson, visit these two interesting threads from the Spring: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18602 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=18371

False. Canada prevents the possession of certain drugs, not the use thereof. Citing workplace policy having the 'force of law' is incorrect since the law cannot provide any charge for one having solely used drugs.

Great. So now we can expect more Ontario Landowner Association nutcases in the PC ranks. Both Hillier and McLaren won fairly easily. A dark could over the otherwise pleasant hills and dales of Eastern Ontario...

Me too. No. The 60% of the 47.6% of those who bothered to vote shows Ontarions don't want to move right. I included the NDP in that figure because, at last look, they appeared to be somewhat left of the Liberals. I didn't include the Greens because who the hell knows where they are on the Ontario political spectrum these days? I mean, didn't anyone listen to them closely enough to find out? Now, while this doesn't prove Ontarions - as a whole - don't want to move to the right, the recent election could be considered a tangible demonstration of a more likely potential. Nothwithstanding the "silent majority" and their wishes of course, which I am sure we are going to be hearing about lots in the coming years. For levity's sake, I am sure that all of that silent majority are victims of unreported crime too.

So are you saying that all provinces must agree to have a federal referendum, even a non-binding one? Let's go back a few pages: I think it is instructive to the public to inform them that, should they truly wish it, a republic is basically at their fingertips. That is, there are no Constitutional structures, laws or conventions that would prevent them from having their republic should they wish it. The only obstacle to a republic in Canada is public consent. Wouldn't you agree?

OK, fair enough. Here is what you say: So I guess I am asking you what should laws be based on if not public opinion? From my view, public opinion has been writing and re-writing laws for as long as recorded human history and likely a little longer. There is precendence built into some of the longer lasting systems of justice, of course, but by and large laws generally reflect that of the public. As they ought. Take the age of consent or capital punishment as your example. As the highest court in the land, the SCC is the exact sort of instrument to write or re-write those laws. That is why we ask them questions and they provide us with their opinions.

They are teaching kindergartners that the wealthy elites are the enemy? Whoa! Can't wait to see what they bring to the table when they are adults...