Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government – Consultation on Year-1 Progress


  • RSS
  • Cite

The feedback provided helped inform the development of the Implementation of Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government (Year-1) Self-Assessment Report.

Thank you to everyone who participated - this consultation is now closed.

Your comments and suggestions are always welcome on any area of the Open Government Action Plan, so please don’t hesitate to send them our way.

As the first year of the Action Plan’s implementation draws to a close, we need to take stock of Canada’s progress in implementing the Year-1 deliverables of our plan. We would like to ask you:

  • How do you think we did in meeting our year-1 commitments within the Action Plan? (e.g. Open Government Licence, Modernizing the administration of Access to Information, new site, etc.)
  • Of the 12 Action Plan commitments, which do you think still require the most attention to achieve the objectives identified, and why?
  • Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make pertaining to the Government of Canada’s Open Government initiative?

For more information on what the Government of Canada committed to do in Year-1 of its Action Plan, and what has been accomplished, please review Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government – Key Year-1 Progress Highlights.

User comments

The steps identified in the action plan represent significant improvements for Canadians. is from my point of view important for full development to achieve the objectives as it will provide a strong basis for renewed policy development at many levels and creates data informed real and tangible project and program proposals with indicators for measurement. Access to data banks while respecting ATIP principles is most important for sound external project and program development, implementation and assessment of effectiveness.
significant improvements you say? How so? ATIP requests are not slowing down - probably because the information provided does not meet expectations. All seemingly good intentions re: Library and Archives Canada are diminished by the fact that the department is not led by a professional in the discipline and the collections and services are seriously negatively impacted.
Having policy informed to the greatest extent possible by high quality evidence (including but not limited to data) is a position that I would strongly agree with. However, before looking at the data per se it is important to consider what data is collected, and what data the government decides to make available. For example, many argue that the loss of the long-form mandatory census represents a significant step backwards in terms of collection of high-quality data. Open access to poor quality quality is not the way to evidence-based decision making by anyone. Government scientists are muzzled - this is not "open government". This is a serious loss of access to the evidence and knowledge that our government has. See my comment for further details on this site or posted on my blog here:
Interesting - but this is the first I've heard of this "Action Plan" (I wasn't looking for it so it had to come to me and just did). I looked at your 12 commitments and was surprised at #4 and #6. Library and Archives Canada would be best served by having a Librarian or Archivist leading the work. When is that going to happen? The collections need to be validated and the staff looking after them need to be "professional". What difference does it make if you make "virtual" or more "accessible" what is not regarded well? This quality question also speaks to ATIP request management. Increasing access is fine - but can we work on the quality? About GCDOCS - all I have to say is remember RDIMS. Try not to repeat what you did wrong there. So far the government is not heeding this. GCDOCS is not going to succeed. sigh...
Le gouvernement a fait beaucoup d'avancées en ce qui a trait à ses engagements. Cependant, l'absence d'un engagement pour changer la Loi sur l'accès à l'information saute aux yeux. Après tous les scandales de dépenses aux Sénat que l'on connait, il faudrait que le gouvernement passe de la parole aux actes. Ce ne sera pas possible sans une loi plus rigoureuse.
Good progress has been made on the Action Plan. However, progress on the details does not begin to make up for overall increasing secrecy and lack of accountability by this government. For example, when the International Monetary Fund "devotes nine pages to the trials and travails of Page’s five years trying to shine a torchlight in the government’s murky budget process — and especially on the toxic responses he got from Harper’s ministers" (from our Prime Minister prorogues parliament when there are major questions relating to accountability that should be answered in Parliament, serious scholars like John Dupuis document The Canadian War on Science: a long, unexaggerated, devastating chronological indictment…, Canada engages in secretive trade treaty negotiations like FIPA and TPP, "Open Government" sounds like a phrase straight out of Orwell's 1984. Canada needs to step back and ask, not whether we are making progress on these details (good though this is in itself) - that is to say, not to ask "how much progress are we making towards open government", but rather "are we moving towards open government at all, or are we moving fast in the opposite direction, towards more secret and unaccountable government"? I am really sorry to have to write such a critical comment as I am sincere about the genuine progress made by Clement and those who really are working for open government and would much rather give them the applause that they deserve, but this is far too important and we need to focus on the big picture.
According to Deloitte, Bill C-60, the federal budget, doubled the tax rates for credit unions and caisses populaires. This may have been an error, but the Department of Finance is not sure they can fix this by the end of this year. Wouldn't an Open Government approach involve not proroguing parliament but rather getting to work and fixing errors like this? Here is the link to the Deloitte report:
Je vous félicite pour votre excellente initiative et les réalisations jusqu'à date. Ce commentaire concerne le 2e point de la consultation, il s'agit d'un commentaire sur les 12 engagements dans le cadre du Plan d'action. Voici : il est essentiel de modifier les paramètres d'indexation des pages des sites gouvernementaux pour refléter les réalités d'une approche d'un gouvernement ouvert. Spécifiquement, il est primordial de modifier les fichiers "robots.txt" associés aux domaines du gouvernement du Canada ( C'est une chose de diffuser ses données et documents dans internet, mais c'est une autre de les rendre repérables par les divers engins de recherche du Web. Actuellement, le gouvernement du Canada impose des barrières aux programmes d'indexation du web, ce qui pose préjudice aux droits des citoyens d'accéder (repérer l'information). Il va sans dire que l'appareil gouvernemental est un système complexe et mon commentaire vous concerne en partie. D'autres départements sont probablement plus concernés par la pratique gouvernementale de "cacher" des documents sur le web des moteurs de recherche. Je désire saisir l'opportunité que vous m'offrez de m'exprimer pour passer ce commentaire. Ainsi, ce commentaire pourrait se retrouver au sein des "Norme sur l'optimisation des sites Web et des applications pour appareils mobile" sous l'égide du point 8 "GCWeb" du plan d'action. Elle pourrait aussi figurer parmi le point 1 "Directive sur le gouvernement ouvert" du plan d'action. J'ai tenté de retrouver dans la documentation citée à quel endroit le gouvernement émet des directives concernant la gestion de l'indexation par des engins de recherche externes, sans succès. Peu importe dans quel cadre s'inscrit mon commentaire, il va sans dire que tous les Canadiennes, tous les Canadiens et tous les citoyens du Web vont bénéficier directement d'une publication ouverte ET d'une indexation libre de votre documentation. Pour des compléments d'information, je vous invite à visiter cette page de mon blogue :
The federal government frequently tables in Parliament answers to written questions posed by Members of Parliament. (Order Paper Questions.) These answers are public documents, often produced through significant work by public officials. Many of the answers are in the form of detailed tabular matter. Data, in other words. They are produced as Word tables or Excel spreadsheets. Yet the Privy Council Office will not release these data tables in soft copy. They will only release them as paper printouts, or, at best, as PDF scans of paper printouts. Why will PCO not release the raw data? This is not openness. This is not transparency. This is not accountability. This is the opposite of all those things, and it comes right from the top, from the central organ of government. Unless and until this ludicrous situation is rectified, this government's supposed commitment to openness and transparency is a farcical lip-service.
I have little faith in an article published in partisan colours with references to debatable Conservative initiatives such as the "Canada Acton Plan". Open government is about an approach, not about a technology. The introduction of new technologies should be an opportunity to give Canadians the facility to participate with the government, yet the very first tenant is to improve the ability of Canadians to pay for the service. Surely the first plan should be to make the information of how the government operates more freely available to all Canadians. As to the open nature of government, one would expect headlines equivalent to the announcement of new pipelines on the need to engage Canadians and the desire to gain input on performance. Instead the request is hidden in the furtive august prorogue in the hopes that only notified supporters will add their thoughts. Open Government initiatives are considered to be transformative. They change the way in which the government interacts with the citizenry, and as a result, the citizenry gain an increased level of trust that they know and understand how the government operates. Releasing greater numbers of documents and datasets does nothing to explain government operations nor does it increase the level of trust in the government. Only by focusing on the open integrity of government will trusted improved While the release of ever increasing sets of data is welcome, only when government becomes open will the trusted gained. Release the detailed information about how the government intends to spend tax dollars and perhaps the citizenry will begin to believe in open government.
Open government? Even this 'consultation' is far from open. It was never publicly announced. I found out about it from someone's comment on a blog! If this government were actually serious about consulting citizens we would have the information we need to truly join in a dialogue on policy. This is the main reason that you are losing support in the polls. The world is moving online, so things are much harder to hide. Citizens expect open and transparent communications and access. As for the action plan, year one doesn't seem to really be accomplishing much. It is laying a foundation, I realize, but why aren't we seeing ads about this action plan? You have been attacked precisely because your government (I certainly don't feel that it's mine any more) has no concept of what the words, open, transparent and accountable actually mean. One would think that you would make sure every Canadian knew about this. Oh, and before I forget, hands off my internet! That proper use of technology ploy is just a way to invade privacy. Just because I don't want my actions tracked or limited does not mean I am a criminal, subversive or a terrorist.
Thank you for the opportunity to share opinions and concerns about the Action Plan. Here, listed in no particular order, are some of my thoughts. 1. There have been attempts in past to help departments to better manage electronic information (RDIMS comes to mind): the challenges that arise here relate more to the people than the system. The most sophisticated system is worthless in the hands of those who either cannot or will not use it properly. After all, any system is only as good as what is being put into it. If the government can devise and implement a means of training employees at all levels across government to use the GC Docs system properly, this could aid in resolving communications problems within government and facilitate the access to information that Canadians are seeking. Pair this up with the standardization of the classification of documents that is mentioned in the Plan, and there is a chance that things really could work better: just be sure, however, that the training and implementation elements are given the attention that they rightly deserve. 2. There seems to be no mention of updating Access to Information legislation: we do not create, exchange, or store information in the same way we did in 1983, when the legislation was implemented. If the government truly wants the Plan to be successful, legislation must be updated to reflect current realities in how information is created and managed. 3. There is a real concern about accessing the right information in a timely way. For example, Kevin Page should never have had the difficulty he has had in obtaining information about government - from within government - in order to report to the government about its own activities. From outside government, Access to Information requests are taking longer to respond to than ever before. Why it should take significantly longer to access information than in the past, especially when we are told that better systems and administrative measures are being implemented, makes no sense. 4. Improving access to archival information at Library and Archives Canada is commendable: however, when attempting to find ways to do this, I would consider it a much stronger management practice to put someone in charge who is an expert librarian or archivist. 5. If indeed accountability is as important as our government says it is, then the sharing of information and the will to rectify problems found within government in a timely and transparent fashion should be paramount. The Federal Accountability Act, which is listed as one of the major advancements in the Open Government Strategy, is only as good as our willingness to make use of it. Legislation that sits idle might as well never have been written. 6. There is mention of ‘open dialogue’ in the Plan, with a focus on public consultation. I find the government’s current approach to consult the public puzzling. It was only because I follow current events that I learned of this consultation in an online news article. In my view, a commitment to public consultation would have involved at least a media announcement – or perhaps the use of ‘online social media platforms’ that are mentioned in the Plan itself.
Flat out, the federal Conservatives fail in each and every category listed. Your "open and accountable" election promise has yet to be fulfilled; not one of your departments (or ministers in charge of said departments) is allowed to make any statement that's not been pre-approved by the PMO; and all this is only proven by the unannounced, unadvertised, and hard-to-find link to give you feedback on your so-called progress. So far, I'd consider the whole of it a case of propaganda at its worst. If you really want to be seen as a tiger that can change its stripes, I would suggest you quit trying to micromanage the message (or massage, if you'd prefer) and start really listening to ALL the people you "profess" to represent.
Open Government licence is okay, but it's yet another licence we have to scan through and abide by. CC0 would have been simpler. • New could be clearer/more accurate in data descriptions. Some data are described as being CSV, when they're actually only barely computer-parseable. A good example would be IC's TAFL data, which is long-line fixed width ASCII with field content depending on internal structure. • Open Data ? Open Government. Transparency far more important than trying to bribe us with free data goodies.
I was interested to see this. I was unaware of the initiative. The goals for open government that I see are not result and action oriented nor time-bound. For example 'pursue deployment across the federal government,' 'initiate the implementation of this new platform.' The goals are extremely modest and progress seems limited to designs of models and processes.
I couldn't agree more with the comment left by mratzer that " Open government is about an approach, not about a technology." It's about an entire philosophy of transparency, and that philosophy has been sorely lacking in this government and no commitment to an Action Plan is going to change that. As far as I can tell, the commitment to this Action Plan, and the less than open consultations that are taking place as a consequence, are just window dressing to try to convince Canadians that the government is being open. Then again, most Canadians probably don't have the first clue about it because the consultations have not been publicly announced. Nor is it likely that many Canadians would just "stumble upon" this notice on the Treasury Board website. I began volunteering in federal politics at the age of 14 and spent the better part of my career either working with or for the federal government. As someone who had been fiercely proud of the robustness and openness of our democracy, I am disturbed by what I have seen happening over the last number of years: the elimination of funding for policy research which would provide the data necessary for evidence-based decision-making (as opposed to ideology-based decision making), the tight control by the PMO of every aspect of the government, the erosion of a healthy relationship with the media who play a critical role in democracy, the re-direction of science funding to industry-driven initiatives. I could go on... I have no illusion that my comment will have any impact on how this government operates, but after accidentally finding out about this "public" consultation on "open" government, I felt compelled to share my concerns.
How did you do? In a word: terrible. In two words: absolutely terrible. Your government is the least transparent, least accountable, least open, most restrictive, most dismissive government that has ever disgraced Canada. You muzzle dissent, ignore criticism, shut down debate--not to mention parliament every time you're in trouble. And now you hide this little gem of an opportunity to tell you how poorly you're doing on openness. Your comeuppance cannot come soon enough.
In every one of the 12 Year 1 commitments in the Action Plan, this government has failed miserably. I have no idea if these "commitments" were meant to be "just words", or if they were specifically crafted to be the most believable lies possible. The Harper Government has been the most paranoid, secretive, unaccountable, irresponsible, and "un-open" government in Canadian history. Frankly, I'm not surprised at all that you put out this "consultation" at the end of summer, with no press release, no advertisements, and at a time of year when most Canadians are busy getting themselves and/or their children back to school. I suspect you've just told Conservative minions across the country to come to this site and post the most glowing pablum possible, so you can later crow about how "open and accountable" your government is. I pray, literally, that Canadian voters will see through all the lies of "the Harper Government", and I pray that in 2015, Canadian voters give your party the same message they gave to the old PCs in 1993. A pox on all your houses.
This "consultation" survey is pretty ineffective and very ambiguous. The page I am on is the only one that seems even remotely related to providing feedback and the description to share says I must "please login or register to create an account. You can also participate in this consulation by emailing yoru responses to" However, after I hit register, then logged in after getting the validation email, put me in a non-useful location. It was very hard to find this page. And the page still says I need to login before I can provide feedback. Could this have been made any more annoying to try to provide feedback? Ok, so it seems like you do not actually want feedback since this consultation was buried, not told to the press, nor advertised. This kind of goes against the whole spirit and fact of an open government. It does not pass the 5 year old smell test. (ie, a 5 year old would smell that there is something wrong with how this is set up) Your questions: 1) How do you think we did in meeting our year-1 commitments within the Action Plan? (e.g. Open Government Licence, Modernizing the administration of Access to Information, new site, etc.) - it is a bit difficult to navigate the site and changes would have to be made to help somehow, though it is reasonable at this point - it was not straight-forward to even find the 12 action plan commitments 2) Of the 12 Action Plan commitments, which do you think still require the most attention to achieve the objectives identified, and why? - Open Government Directive probably needs more work. Just the senate scandal alone shows that information is very slow to have come out. Or at least at this point the optics of it seem that way. 3) Are there any other comments or suggestions you would like to make pertaining to the Government of Canada’s Open Government initiative? - keep on going!!! Elmer
Considering I didn't know Canada had an Action Plan on Open Government until this morning, I don't think the government is doing well at all. In fact, I find this government to be the first one in the history of Canada to have an iron curtain around information. There's no way people like me who honestly care about open, transparent and accountable governments should have found out about this consultation on the last day and via an obscure facebook link. Getting a foundation laid down on openness is great and I'm glad to see it but I don't trust the current government enough, by example alone, to do this right. From muzzling scientists, to my MP basically being a vote and party representative instead of a person and public representative, to getting rid of the long form census (which in turn skews data), to calling environmentalists extremists, to wanting to track every movement I make on the internet, to massive omnibus budget bills that change laws in ways that need WAY more public debate, tell me where and how I should start trusting this government in creating open government initiatives. I've never seen a Canadian government this secretive. Decisions need to be made based on sound clear evidence, not ideologies. As far as the current initiatives go, creating ATI requests online, making for government efficiency is a good start. Announcing and promoting public consolations needs a lot of work. (Plus, increase the length of the consultations.) Open, transparent and accountable are words I wouldn't associate with the federal government right now. A good start for Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government would be to allow the plan itself to be built equally between all political parties as well as via input from the public with special attention given to those in the know on transparency governance. Finally, don't skimp on funding for ANY openness and accountability initiatives. It's extremely important now and in the future that the government become and stay as transparent as possible. I'd be willing to pay more tax dollars for any real and successful initiatives that create transparency between me and the government.
How is it an open consultation when it's practically unknown? I see ads everywhere for the Action Plan, but not a peep about this site through official channels (I saw it from Huffpost) and this sort of thing shouldn't be constrained to 3 weeks! What kind of country-wide survey limits itself to 3 weeks?!?! And no I can`t say the Action Plan is working, it`s doing nothing for the average worker or the newly graduated. I see this as more of a weak attempt at an illusion of creating jobs. You talk of open government, yet muzzle everyone! It`s not working guys, take off your blinders!
The Federal government has set a very good example which the provinces and municipalities should follow. Many of the most useful datasets, such as those related to land, assessment, housing, transportation and vital statistics are not available at all or available under restrictive licenses from provincial or municipal governments. If the data is public, it should be readily available to the public in machine-readable format without restriction, like the Federal government has demonstrated with hundreds of datasets. To the contrary, for example, in Ontario, land registry data has been monopolized by private enterprise under agreement with the Provincial government. Land registry data is readily available to everyone except the general public (who paid for its collection) and those innovators that wish to use and add value to the data. The same is true for assessment data in a number of provinces including Ontario and Nova Scotia, both which have privatized the assessment function including the valuable data which results from the delivery of the service and custodianship of the underlying systems. Synthetic barriers including protection of private interests should not be tolerated insofar as access to and use of public data assets. There's nothing necessarily wrong with privatizing a government function, but the data resulting from the operation should be freely available for all to use. Any barriers to access materially inhibit or prevent innovation, learning and efficiency improvements that come as a result of the development of innovative consumer-friendly applications which link and integrate a range of datasets. Data is an infinitely renewal natural resource in a digital economy. Access generates opportunity at no cost to the economy. Suggestion: The Federal government should put incentives in place that reward provincial and municipal governments for opening up access to public data. The OGL is a start but it should include incentives. The Federal government has successfully dealt with matters that cross jurisdictions, such as labor, more specifically, labor mobility. Bill McMullin Bedford, Nova Scotia
To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for formally soliciting feedback on Canada’s Action Plan on Open Government (CAPOG). There have been some significant steps forward and I would particularly like to acknowledge that the Government of Canada (GoC) has: 1. Adopted the G8 Open Data Charter and has committed to the proactive release of data 2. Implemented the new Open Government License embracing unrestricted re-use of government data and information I am concerned, however, that the same level and attention given to the GoC’s data assets hasn’t similarly been given to the GoC publishing output resulting in a barrier to access rather than the openness envisioned by CAPOG. Let me give you a recent example. Under the GoC’s recently implemented ROT protocol (Redundant/Old/Trivial) to streamline web access, much content was removed from each departmental website including press releases, speeches and publications. It is difficult to determine the scope of what’s been removed and access to previously published reports is now frequently mediated by filling in a request based form. See as an example where even the publications available for request have been mediated. This runs counter to the philosophies behind Open Government. With the GoC’s intention to go paperless in 2014, _permanent_ access to electronic publications becomes even more important. According to CAPOG’s Year 1 highlights, the implementation of a ‘Virtual Library’ is underway and will include “proposed alignment with the direction being set by the Government of Canada’s overall Web Renewal initiative with additional support from Libraries and Archives Canada.” What this means is somewhat unclear and worrisome given recent experience in trying to locate formerly published resources. I note you have an “Advisory Panel on Open Government” comprised of experts from outside the GoC ( Their credentials are noteworthy especially given their expertise in relation to data. There isn’t anyone on this panel, however, that can offer the same depth of knowledge in relation to other published material. I recommend you expand your Advisory Panel to include those who have expertise in this area. I thank the GoC for steps taken thus far in making data more accessible and I encourage the GoC to work [much] harder in ensuring long term preservation and access to its “other” published assets.
I would like to see a more serious effort by the government for feedback. Activity Stream 3 of the action plan is for open dialogue, with Consulting Canadians as one of the items. - This forum for feedback was not advertised - that is not the way to have open dialogue. I do not feel that I was consulted, I feel that the government was specifically trying to not consult on this issue. - I regularly receive mail from my MP that seems to be looking for feedback, but worded to be disparaging to other parties, not truly looking for honest opinions. Consulting Canadians should not just include some web developments (although they can have potential), it should also include some common sense.
My primary comment on this consultation is that it has not been promulgated in an effective manner. It seems almost hidden, as if there was not a sincere desire to find out what Canadians are thinking. My second comment on this consultation is that, although Canadians are told their input is welcome up until 11:59pm on September 9 2013, I have been unable to access the form. It appears to have been removed from the page on which it purportedly lies. After the statement ''use the form below,'' the page ends with no further information or link. My comment therefore is that the Treasury Board is not interested in our input. MY third comment, on the lyear-1 progress on the Open Government Action Plan: Not nearly enough has been done to inform the public nor to loosen up information. not only to Canadians, but to our Members in Parliament in order to be able to do their jobs. The lack of progress on FOI in the various ministries is most visible in the failure of the government of Canada to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with the information he needs in order to provide accurate and effective information to Parliament and , through that, to the Canadian people. Fourth, as to which of the 12 Open Government Action Plan commitments require the most attention, I would have to say that before the commitments are acted upon, this government should revisit the whole idea of open government and decide whether they are really interested in opening up to the Canadian people. Otherwise, all that I read are mere words, with the caveat that this government has before been convicted of contempt of Parliament for withholding vital information from the peoples' representatives; and that makes it appear that this alleged commitment to open government is a sham, put there by politicians to bgive the people the illusion that they are open and honest. This government has a serious credibility gap, and the most attention should focus on an attitude adjustment and subsequent actions that demonstrate their commitment to the people of Canada, not to the corporate culture. Fifth, and finally, my comment is that until this government starts serving the Canadian people instead of corporate interests, any pretense at being in public service to serve the public will only compound the untruths that this government has lived on for so long.
This government's "Open Government" initiative is a farce, as evidenced by the following facts: 1. The complete lack of proper notification (or encouragement) to the public for this consultation itself - the government will no doubt use the resulting lack of substantial amount of comments to spin it as Canadians being "satisfied of this governments work and progress because almost no one wrote in to complain". 2. TPP and FIPA negotiated in complete secrecy - There's nothing "open" about the negotiations of these treaties which will tie future generations of Canadians into restrictive rules mostly dictated by corporate interests. This government has offered no valid or satisfactory reasons why these negotiations are so secretive, or what advantages (if any) this will bring to Canada and its citizens.
This was the most disappointing experience I have ever had dealing with the Canadian Government. I found out about this "consultation with Canadians" through a friend on Facebook! Not in the newspaper, not through any announcement from our government... on Facebook! And even then I had to read a Huffington Post to get the whole story. I'm sorry but the "Harper Government" has been nothing but an epic disappointment to not only me but almost everyone I know. There is no such thing as transparency in this organization, it's all about staying in power. So disappointing! Not the Canada I remember from my youth!
The new site perpetuates a problem with the original site (the open data portal) namely inclusion of data tables from many departments including Stats Can, including census and survey tables that have been previously available. As well, the site is sloppy with respect to data tables, data sets, and RAW data. They are NOT the same, and citizens who wish to reuse data need RAW data and PUMF files for major Stats Can surveys. As well, there should be included free geo data and charts from the Canadian hydrographic Service. GC Web - The creation of a new web presence and new standards for the GC website failed to consider the importance of web archiving. The GC web site contains much information that is only found in digital form on it. To redo and remake the website without a plan to archive the existing content removes information from Canadians. Just as important as archiving government records, preserving publications, and storing data, websites too must be preserved. There are tools for this, and plan for archiving websites before they are renewed must be in place. The web site should not be made so simple that a citizen can't locate information by government department or minister. If my MP is a cabinet minister, responsible for a department, I want to what he/she are doing! The Virtual library design plans should be made available to Canadians. It should include, as noted in the year one progress reports, content from existing repositories specifically and Libraries and Archives Canada, repositories that by law and the communications policy include publications, records and information in other formats created by the government . has an electronic document collection that is in valuable, and dates back to the mid 1990's. It's collection and catalogue is increasing important given the move to epublishing as the new standard for the government. Without print, a stable catalogue of metadata and a stable repository of the epubs are essential. The virtual library must also include access to both new and old publications and information., Opening GC records - plans for LAC to increase the archival GC (RG) records available online are welcome, and are results are eagerly anticipated, as students can no longer borrow RG microfilm from LAC. Open regulation - this seems just a repackaging of some of information that is published in the Canada Gazette Part 1. It would be helpful if the forward regulatory plans actually linked to the Canada Gazette Part 1.
Date modified: