Category Archives: Information Access

Free trade agreement poses threat to a free internet

“After years of secrecy, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement has finally been released to the public. The shadowy process and overreaching scope of the deal have sparked an international outcry; it’s been roundly condemned as an attack on worker’s rights, the environment, public health, small businesses and startups. But perhaps the biggest concern is over the impact that it will have on the internet….The final version of TPP confirms advocates’ worst fears. Thanks to, among other things, its dramatic expansion of copyright enforcement, the agreement poses a grave threat to our basic right to access information and express ourselves on the web, and could easily be abused to criminalize common online activities and enforce widespread internet censorship.”
The opinion piece “The clock is ticking on a time bomb that could blow up a free internet: the TPP” is available on The Guardian’s website:

Health Canada Prey to Predatory OA Publisher Intech

The Ottawa Journal reports that Health Canada paid to publish 25 to 30 documents on food safety through predatory journal International Food Risk Analysis Journal. This journal is published by Intech Open Access of Croatia which can be found on Beall’s list of predatory publishers. The journal has recently stopped appearing on Intech’s website. For more details see the article by Sean Kilpatrick.

This rather complex controversy, which has not been widely reported on, highlights two pressing access to information issues: the continuing difficulty of keeping track of Canadian government documents online and the negative impact of predatory open access journals on the movement to promote open access publishing as an alternative to the big business of academic publishing.

Harper Signs on to Draconian Copyright Provisions… Tells Canadians Nothing about Them

In light of today’s announcement PLG Edmonton is re-posting an information sheet and presentation by then University of Alberta student Cari Postnokoff, originally posted in February 2014, regarding the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.


The Trans Pacific Partnership is a trade deal currently under negotiation behind closed doors. It has the potential to profoundly affect Canadian intellectual property laws. PLG Edmonton member Cari Lynn Postnikoff has put together this information sheet on the Trans Pacific Partnership. Get informed and share it around. You can also see her presenting on the topic at the 2014 Forum for Information Professionals at the School of Library and Information Studies at the University of Alberta below.

If the Info Sheet isn’t appearing, you can download it here.

Information Policies Under the Harper Government Part 3: Cancellation of the Long Form Census

One Line Description: Despite living in the so-called ‘information age’ the Harper Government has decided to make the Government of Canada vastly less informed on its own country by eliminating the long-form census.

Short Description: The government’s 2010 decision to eliminate the long-form census in 2011 and all subsequent censuses under the guise of strengthening privacy[1] greatly limits the ability of the government to effectively plan for programs and services such as benchmarking the Labour Force Survey and calculating regional unemployment rates for the EI program.[2] The replacement of the long-form census with the voluntary National Household Survey has introduced the pervasive risk of sampling bias and underrepresentation of minority groups into government planning.[3]

Details: The government’s claim of protecting privacy by eliminating the threat of jail time was a spurious defence at best as Canadians already face the prospect of incarceration for refusing to complete two other Census (the short form Census and the Census of Agriculture).[4] Furthermore, over the past several decades there have been only a handful of complaints to the Privacy Commissioner’s Office about the claimed intrusiveness of the survey. The elimination of the mandatory long-form census and its replacement with a voluntary survey has met near universal criticism from a wide range of Canadian individuals and organizations. has compiled a list of proponents and opponents of government’s decision. Only a handful of organizations and individuals have spoken out if favour of abandoning the long-form census including The National Citizens Coalition, The Frasier Institute and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Nearly 500 groups and individuals have gone on record against the move including three provinces (Ontario, Quebec and PEI), over 40 cities and a broad range of civil society and professional organizations.[5] Now, several years after the cancellation of the long-form census the impacts are starting to be felt most heavily. Harvey Low, manager of social research at the City of Toronto has stated that Canada’s largest city is now “less sure” about the characteristics of communities it is serving, has “huge gaps” in assessing health trends in the nation’s largest city, and ultimately ends up costing the city more for lower quality data.[6]

[1] Tony Clement. “Statement on the 2011 Census.”

[2] Statistics Canada, Methodology of the Canadian Labour Force Survey, Statistics Canada Catalogue No. 71-526-X: ;and, David A. Green and Kevin Milligan, “The Importance of the Long Form Census to Canada,” Canadian Public Policy, 36(3), (2010), 386.

[3] Ivan Fellegi, Evidence before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, 40th Parl. 3rd Sess., (27 July 2010):  

[4] Marc Garneau. Evidence before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, 40th Parl., 3rd Sess., (27 July 2010).

[5], “Census Watch: List of Organizations Against and Supporting the Government’s Position on the cancellation of the Long Form of the 2011 Census,” (23 Dec. 2010):

[6] Harvey Low, as quoted in, Tavia Grant. “Damage from Cancelled Census as Bad as Feared, Researchers Say.” The Globe and Mail, 29 Jan. 2015.

Information Policies Under the Harper Government Part 2: Market Forces Orientation of Telecom Policy

One-Line Description: Harper Government Believes Shareholders of Bell, Rogers, Telus, Shaw and other Media Companies should Decide Canadian Telecommunications Policy

Short Description: In 2006 the Harper Cabinet directed the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), Canada’s national telecommunications regulator, to effectively not regulate and to “rely on market forces to the maximum extent feasible as the means of achieving the telecommunication policy objectives”[1]

Details: Not even a full year into its first minority mandate, the Harper Government used an Order in Council (basically a decision of Cabinet that, unlike legislation, does not have to be approved by Parliament) to direct the CRTC to rely on market forces to the maximum extent possible while using regulation “to the minimum extent necessary.”[2] In 2007, Industry Canada, which has both policy and regulatory responsibilities for the wireless sector adopted the same approach in its Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada which stated, “Market forces should be relied upon to the maximum extent feasible.”[3] While the Canadian Telecommunications Policy, contained in section 7 of the Telecommunications Act, does carve out a role for market forces, these are balanced against several other policy objectives.[4] Not only does such policy direction demonstrate a lack of leadership in a key sector (particularly for a country the size of Canada where telecommunications plays a key role in connecting Canadians and communities), it is particularly poor policy in country where the five largest companies capture 86% (or $38.5 billion) of all telecommunication sector revenues.[5] Furthermore, it does little to advance the interests of rural and remote Canadians who live in areas where market forces don’t exist since it does not encourage the deployment of high quality, affordable and reliable telecommunications services in their areas.

[1] Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implement the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives.1(a)(i). SOR/2006-355. Dec 14, 2006.

[2] Order Issuing a Direction to the CRTC on Implement the Canadian Telecommunications Policy Objectives.1(a)(ii). SOR/2006-355. Dec 14, 2006.

[3] Industry Canada. Spectrum Policy Framework for Canada. p. 9.$FILE/spf2007e.pdf

[4] Telecommunications Act. s. 7. (S.C. 1993, c. 38).

[5] Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Communications Monitoring Report 2014. p. iv.

Information Policy Under the Harper Government Part 1: Cuts to LAC/Caron’s Leadership

Cuts to LAC/Caron’s Leadership

One Line Description: Terrible Management and Significant Underfunding Crippling our National Library and Archive

Short Summary:  Through a combination of poor management (former LAC Head Daniel Caron) and significant budget cuts (from $117 million in 2012-2013 FY[1] down to $93 million in FY 2015-16[2]), the Harper Government significantly reduced LAC’s ability to play a leadership role in the Canadian library and archival communities and for the organization to carry out core functions.

Details:  In 2009 the Harper Government appointed career bureaucrat Daniel Caron to head LAC, despite the fact he held no background in either library and information science or archival studies. Caron consistently demonstrated little understanding of the two professions suggesting in 2010 that both may become irrelevant, and urging that a complete reinvention of information professionals dismissing the long and evolving history of both.[3]  Further indicating his lack of understanding, in 2012 in testimony before a Parliamentary Committee, Caron suggested that the work of cataloguing materials including archival materials had become unnecessary.[4]  Under Caron’s dismal leadership of LAC was coupled with severe budget cuts eliminating roughly 20% of the organization’s budget in 2012 and causing staffing levels to fall from 1,117 in FY 2012-13[5] to 8,67 in FY 2015-16.[6]  The budget and staff cuts have left LAC unable to carry out core functions.  50% of its digitization staff was eliminated, and one estimate suggested that it would take 300 to 700 years for the organization to digitize its holdings.[7]  In 2013, LAC was unable to make available the 1921 Census data without partnering with a private company ([8]  If LAC can’t, on its own, make available a 90 year old Census document, how will the organization play a key role in the country’s sesquicentennial – a role the Harper Government has consistently suggested it will play.[9]

[1]  Library and Archives Canada. Report on Plans and Priorities 2012-13, p. 15.

[2]  Library and Archives Canada. Report on Plans and Priorities 2015-16.

[3]  Daniel Caron. “Memory Institutions in the 21st Century: The Need for Convergence and Collaboration.”

[4]  Daniel Caron. Evidence before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Official Languages. 41st Parl. 1 Sess., Nov. 6, 2012.

[5]  Library and Archives Canada. Report on Plans and Priorities 2012-13, p. 15.

[6]  Library and Archives Canada. Report on Plans and Priorities 2015-16.

[7]  Save Library and Archives Canada. “Digitization.”

[8]  LAC. “Census of Canada 1921 Now Available to Researchers.”

[9]  LAC. Report on Plans and Priorities 2014-15.


PLG Edmonton Stands Against Bill C-51

PLG Edmonton is deeply concerned about the impact that Bill C-51 will have on public privacy and freedom of speech in Canada.    The Act puts the privacy of the personal information of Canadians at risk, and could also be used as a tool to limit freedom of expression in Canada.

Despite the intention of the federal government to protect Canadians from terrorism, the bill will expand the definition of security threats to actions that threaten public safety and ‘economic or financial stability of Canada’ (Stryker and Cheung, 2015). As a result the law could be used to target civil society organizations, protest groups, and other members of the public whose actions are viewed by the government as a threat to the economy, stifling debate and discussion around topics of concern to Canadians as a result.

The bill will also allow for easier sharing of Canadians’ personal information between federal departments and foreign agencies. The justification for this is that it will help police and security forces access important information they need to thwart potential terrorist acts. However, experts do not believe that the federal government has the proper infrastructure in place to ensure that the federal government can properly fulfill its responsibilities under the new law. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien argues that under Bill C-51, there would be a lack of oversight and resources within his office to ensure that government agencies are not misusing this information (Beaulne-Stuebing, 2015).  Canadian anti-terrorist experts Craig Forcese and Kent Roach have said that Canada’s security review infrastructure lacks the essential resources it will need to review the work of CSIS as it assumes new security responsibilities (Forcese and Roach, 2014)

The privacy commissioner also believes that the bill could prevent the government from following correct records management practices.  He is concerned that as personal information is collected by various agencies, it could be retained for a longer period of time than it is needed. (Beaulne-Stuebing, 2015).

With the bill now having Royal Assent, we encourage repeal at the earliest possible juncture and demand that the federal government take into consideration the serious threats that this bill will pose to personal privacy and freedom of expression in Canada. We also encourage Canadians to remain vocal about Bill C-51 and its potential impact during the upcoming federal election campaign.

Beaulne-Stuebing, R. (23 Apr, 2015) Bill C-51 will strain my office’s resources: privacy commissioner. Retrieved from

Roach, K., Forcese, C. (2015) Canada’s Antiterror Gamble. Retrieved from:

Stryker, A., Cheung, C. (March 11, 2015) 8 things you need to know about Bill C-51. Retrieved from:

The Library Digital Privacy Pledge of 2015

The Library Digital Privacy Pledge of 2015 focuses “on the use of HTTPS to deliver library services and the information resources offered by libraries. Building a culture of library digital privacy will not end with this 2015 pledge, but committing to this first modest step together will begin a process that won’t turn back.  We aim to gather momentum and raise awareness with this pledge; and will develop similar pledges in the future as appropriate to advance digital privacy practices for library patrons.” Visit Eric Hellman’s blog for more information on the Library Digital Library Pledge of 2015.

He invites all stakeholders and “everyone with responsibility for providing library services on the web, including publishers, systems vendors, librarians and scholars…to review the draft before it is finalized.”

If you or your library organization wishes to be added to the list of signatories, please send your contact information to

We must defend public libraries from the threat of a market-based ideological framework

“It is clear that the dominant logic which governs this area of public spending is not characterised by a concern for inequalities, community and inclusive access to information and literature. Rather, it is the logic of market values, profitability and a concern for “getting a good deal for the taxpayer” which is the criteria upon which this area of public spending is being judged.”

The full article can be found here:


Edmonton shows national solidarity at C-51 protest

On March 14th Edmontonians protested the controversial C-51, which many academics and legal experts have argued violates Canadian’s intellectual freedom and freedom of speech. The protest was one of many that occurred across Canada – with Edmontontians joining the 78,000 protestors across the country. Protest organizer Doug Yearwood was interviewed by the Edmonton Examiner:

Some of the potential outcomes from this bill are far reaching…It gives CSIS the ability to share and collect information with other intelligence agencies, but it also allows them the ability to act on their own accord and commit what is otherwise known as disruption tactics, act on their own volition and create a secret police, so to speak.

The first thing everyone should do is start having a conversation with your MP. Even if you didn’t vote for them or don’t agree with them, one of the most important things you can do is let your MP know where you sit on this issue.


Canadians can learn more about the bill at


Footage of the Bill C-51 Protest in Edmonton on March 14, 2015