Kirsti Nilsen: Response to Bruce Morton
Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada, Volume 2, number/numéro 3.5 (winter/hiver 1996)

Response to Bruce Morton 1

Kirsti Nilsen, Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto 2


Those of us interested in Canadian government information policy have long appreciated Bruce Morton's contributions to our understanding of that policy. The article under discussion supplements a number of earlier articles published in Government Publications Review (now Journal of Government Information). This most recent, and perhaps culminating, article gives us a detailed introduction into the complex nature of the information policy process in Canada, specifically as it relates to the information industry. Morton has looked at Canadian information policy in considerable depth and with more diligence than any Canadian has, and we should be grateful.

This response deals with three issues raised by Morton, the issue of cultural nationalism, the debate over control versus access, and finally the question of what drives policy. In each case, I would argue not that Morton is wrong, but that there is sometimes more to the issue than he suggests.

Cultural Nationalism

Canadian concern with cultural nationalism and cultural sovereignty is described by Morton as a "specter" which haunts policy developers. While he is aware that there is indeed cause for concern when database content is determined by a foreign agenda, he suggests that Canada should be swayed from its stance on cultural nationalism. He writes that our response to cultural sovereignty issues can be either visceral or rational, implying that one excludes the other. Why a visceral response cannot at the same time be rational escapes me. Morton argues that Canadian government policy is structured with cultural sovereignty in mind, and suggests that this has negative implications for Canadian infrastructure development. Underlying his discussion, one senses that Morton appears to suffer, as do many Americans, from an inability to understand why cultural nationalism is a concern in Canada and why non-Americans fear American control of media.

He suggests that the Canadian equation of communications and culture should be changed, noting that government is "entrapped" in the position that sees the wisdom of linking communication and culture. He argues that communications should not be seen as a cultural industry, but what is communications in the United States, if not ultimately a cultural industry? It is not simply another technological manufacturing industry. Clearly, there is an American culture being expressed by American communication media, which because of size and relative advantage provides little space for other cultures. Canadians are not alone -- France and other European countries have expressed similar concerns. Because of language and proximity, we perhaps have more to fear.

Morton describes such concerns as "xeninfobia", a fear of foreign information. I would argue that Canadians do not fear foreign information, but fear foreign control of Canadian information and foreign control of the decisions regarding what foreign information is to be made available to Canadians. These are fears that rise from cultural nationalism, but as Morton rightly notes, also from a fear of loss of control of our own information.

Control and Access

Morton writes that control and access are the two dynamics that have epitomized the relationship between government and the information industry. Control and access have long been issues in Canadian government information policy, and are not limited to the government's relationship to the industry. Control of government information is achieved in the first instance by Crown copyright, which, as Morton notes, is thought to limit information industry growth. But Crown copyright has been applied to the publishing sector with at least as much vigour as it is being applied to the information industry (and may also have limited growth in the publishing industry). He suggests that the government argued less forcefully that paper-based information served a social purpose than it has done with respect to database information. Financial considerations have undoubtedly influenced rhetoric. The potential for financial gains from electronically-stored government information is not lost on officials who are under pressure to recover costs and generate new revenue. With higher financial stakes, there is little likelihood of giving up control even if it were to widen access to government information. At the same time, Crown copyright is a means to assert Canadian sovereignty over Canadian government information, and if that sovereignty is threatened, there would indeed be a visceral response! However, as Morton himself notes, Crown copyright may be an irritant but is not a major issue in the information industry, which has accommodated itself to it.

What Drives Policy?

Of particular interest here is what has driven policy with respect to the information industry. Morton notes quite rightly, that the government's information management planning framework specifies private sector involvement for philosophical, but also for practical reasons. He writes that the Mulroney government "saw the private sector as a financial wherewithal to augment the government's policies and rhetoric of frugality." It is obvious that the government sought to use the private sector to lower its own costs.

What Morton does not note is the role of the Access to Information Act3 in developing policy. The AIA is extremely expensive to responding agencies, and the need to find a way to avoid these costs has driven the push for database marketing. Government agencies were told, at a 1988 Government Database Colloquium, that when a government database is marketed commercially it is considered to be "published". Published materials are not accessible under the Act, and thus, requests can be refused. Those seeking the information therefore must pay the higher vendor charges, rather than the nominal fees charged under the Access Act. The producing agency benefits not only from the licensing fees and any value that may be added by the vendor, but also by avoiding the heavy costs of access requests. Furthermore, as long as the government agency maintains control over the content of the database, cultural sovereignty is not lost. Whether access is enhanced is indeed another question.

Morton's paper is a valuable and enlightening contribution. We can even force ourselves to overlook the unfortunate spelling of our Prime Minister's name, and assume it is an editorial oversight. Morton has certainly ferreted out previously hidden details and documented a byzantine policy process. The process continues and we should continue to monitor it.


Notes

[1] May be cited as/On peut citer comme suit:

Kirsti Nilsen, "Response to Bruce Morton," Government Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada, Vol. 2, no. 3.5 (winter/hiver 1996).

[2]

Kirsti Nilsen, Doctoral Candidate
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto
140 St. George Street
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1 Canada

NILSEN@fis.utoronto.ca

Phone: (416) 978-7099
Fax:   (416) 971-1399

[3] R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1.

Also available:

http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/index_en.html (Select Consolidated Statutes)


... [HOME PAGE / PAGE D'ACCUEIL] ...