the CLA has submitted a Copyright Letter to Ministers Verner, Prentice.  The letter discusses the cost of government data among other interesting points important to that community.

There is an excellent article in the Toronto Star about why we have little understanding about the social demographic situation in Canada! Bref! No one can afford the research! In the article Truth carries a painful user fee; Carol Goar tells it like it is right now in Canada when it comes to access to our public data:

The United Way of Greater Toronto had to pay the agency $28,000 for government data showing that family poverty deepened in Toronto between 2000 and 2005, while low-income households made modest gains everywhere else.

It had to spend its donors’ money to prove that Toronto has the lowest median income of any major urban centre in the country.

It had to dip into its charitable givings to marshal evidence – already collected at taxpayers’ expense – that a one-size-fits-all poverty strategy won’t work for Toronto.

Finally an article that is so pointed on why the cost recovery practices of Statistics Canada are impeding citizens and civil sector organizations from doing their work. This type of analysis is critical in a democratic society, we cannot leave this type of research only to governments, particularly when the results may be pointing to some of its failures. An well, it is also not on the private sector’s radar!

Thanks Ted for posting this on the SPNO-Data List.

The inspirational Free Our Data blog out of the UK reports on a mention of their efforts in Parliament, where Mark Todd, MP had this to say in argument against:

I should like briefly to comment on the free our data campaign [our emphasis], which has suggested that the correct path is to distribute Government data virtually for free, or at cost. The difficulty of that model, which relies on the argument that that would generate substantial economic growth and tax revenues that would easily repay the amount lost in revenues directly associated with the sales, is that I am afraid it places a substantial reliance on any Government—not just this one—to continue to fund the development and maintenance of the quality of data in those organisations. At the moment, the organisations have revenue streams on which they can rely to invest into the future. Simply relying on the Treasury to bury its hand into its pocket periodically to develop data into the future is wishful thinking. That is not the path down which we should be treading.

More of the debate can be found here.

This is what the liberalization of data is all about:

The Newfoundland and Labrador Statistics Agency, in partnership with the Strategic Social Plan (SSP) of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and Memorial University, developed a government and public-wide system that embraces an integrated, evidence-based approach to policy and program development through collaboration within and across government departments, and economic and social sectors. Termed the “Community Accounts“, it is the first Internet-based data retrieval and exchange system in Canada with unrestricted access to view and analyze data down to the community level. It provides citizens and policy makers with a single comprehensive source of key social, economic, and health data and indicators that would not be readily available, too costly to obtain, or too time consuming to manually or otherwise retrieve and compile.

via: SPNO GANIS

an excellent data sharing initiative from Nova Scotia.

A community embodies a wide range of characteristics. Nova Scotia Community Counts presents socio-economic and other data that illustrate the unique nature of each community. With easily accessible information, Community Counts also allows comparisons of community resources among regional, provincial, and national levels to present a more complete picture of Nova Scotian communities.

via: Social Planning Network of Ontario’s Ted Hilderbrandt

The NYTimes has a great interactive multimedia article about the effects climate change on Arctic sea ice melting. The module is simple, explains the basics and is accompanied by some wonderful maps. (See two of the five images from the article below).

With the Arctic ice melt comes the opening of the seas and land, increased potential for exploration and fishing combined with international claims to the region accompanied by questions of sovereignty. This article Spatial Data Infrastructure: Implications for Sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic in particular speaks to that issue.

Currently in Canada there is excellent research ongoing in the Arctic as part of International Polar Year (IPY) and some projects are incorporating indigenous knowledge into climate research such as the Inuit Sea Ice Use and Occupancy Project (ISIUOP). IPY is innovative in many ways, in the case of the mandate of this blog and CivicAccess.ca the data policy is fantastic. To receive funding IPY researchers have to share their data and to archive them. There is also an IPY portal that will disseminate results. It is very rare to see funding tied to dissemination and preservation in this way. The IPY Data Policy is well worth reading and emulating in other contexts. Here is a small portion of what is in the

In accordance with

• the Twelfth WMO Congress, Resolution 40 (Cg-XII, 1995
• the Thirteenth WMO Congress, Resolution 25 (Cg XIII, 1999)
• the ICSU 1996 General Assembly Resolution
• the ICSU Assessment on Scientific Data and Information (ICSU 2004b)
• Article III-1c from the Antarctic Treaty
• the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Data Exchange Policy

and in order to maximize the benefit of data gathered under the auspices of the IPY, the IPY Joint Committee requires that IPY data, including operational data delivered in real time, are made available fully, freely, openly, and on the shortest feasible timescale.

The only exceptions to this policy of full, free, and open access are:

• where human subjects are involved, confidentiality must be protected
• where local and traditional knowledge is concerned, rights of the knowledge holders shall not be compromised
• where data release may cause harm, specific aspects of the data may need to be kept protected (for example, locations of nests of endangered birds or locations of sacred sites).

ICSU (2004b) defines “Full and open access” as equitable, non-discriminatory access to all data preferably free of cost, but some reasonable cost-recovery is acceptable. WMO Resolution 40 uses the terms “Free and unrestricted” and defines them as non-discriminatory and without charge. “Without charge”, in the context of this resolution means at no more than the cost of reproduction and delivery without charge for the data and product themselves.

Collaborative natural science has always aimed at disseminating and sharing results and finally there is some teeth and financial backing to support that spirit.

Data Sources: National Snow and Ice Data Center; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; William Chapman, University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign; Donald K. Perovich, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory; Institute of Environmental Physics. 

Module Authors: Erin Aigner, Jonathan Corum, Vu Nguyen/The New York Times.

Looks like funding cuts are coming down hard on the US Census according to this NYTimes Editorial – Putting the Census at Risk

Whether the [U.S.] Census Bureau has the means to ensure the accuracy of the count — which determines everything from how federal aid is apportioned to how many Congressional seats are given to each state — will be decided this week. Right now, the portents for an accurate count are not good.

The power of Census data and access to these data to a democracy are incalculable, in Canada like the U.S. transfer funding from the Federal Government to fund health care for instance is determined according to Census counts:

An accurate count is essential to a healthy democracy.