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.
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.
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.
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.
Kirsti Nilsen, "Response to Bruce Morton," Government
Information in Canada/Information gouvernementale au Canada, Vol.
2, no. 3.5 (winter/hiver 1996).
[3] R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1.
Also available:
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/Loireg/index_en.html (Select
Consolidated Statutes)
Cultural Nationalism
Control and Access
What Drives Policy?
Notes
[1] May be cited as/On peut citer comme suit:
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