My conversation with Dr. Bennett was short but very useful. We concurred that activities at LAC – from the cutting of staff, programs and services to their controversial Code of Conduct as well as the obvious lack of passion and respect LAC Head Daniel Caron had for Library and Archives Canada as an institution, for colleagues specializing in libraries and archives, and for the care and preservation of our Canadian heritage as a whole.

When I asked Dr. Bennett for advice on what concerned Canadian citizens could do — aside from making a ruckus via social media — she was very helpful in suggesting a plan of action. And this is important, my friends, because what we need to do is quite simple: we need to demonstrate evidence of damage caused by bad decisions at LAC.

And this is where we need to work together — to gather evidence that can be delivered to our representatives that speak for us in the House of Commons. We are librarians, we do this every day. Let’s use our skills and expertise now for the good of our country.

Our Mission: Do the Research, show the Evidence

Here are some examples of how we can show evidence of damage as a result of activities at LAC:

1. Issue: We know that our National Library and Archives do not receive adequate funding, that funding has been inadequate for many years, and funding continues to be diminished.
   
   Task: Look into what other OECD countries invest in their national libraries and archives. I suggest we take a look at the G7 countries, to start: United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. We could also look at Australia and New Zealand, since those countries seem to be making good decisions recently. Create a simple table to show what the G7 countries have invested in their national libraries and archives over the past 10 years, and include Canada. The table will show very clearly that Canada is way down the list.
2. Issue: Earlier this year the wildly popular InterLibrary Loan program at LAC was terminated. Given it’s popularity, it will be missed – but we need to show who will miss it, and what will happen as a result of terminating the service.Task: Find data that indicated the number of ILL requests, ILL requests fulfilled, and the types of material. This is a tough one, since this information may not be easy to find. Still do your best. You may want to try the Way Back Machine to look for cached web pages from before the service was removed. Be crafty. Then, speak to your local library systems, who were the intermediaries that received the ILL materials from LAC and delivered them to the patrons. They likely have data on how often the system was used. And then, we need stories from these libraries – now that ILL is gone, what are the patrons doing to get the information they seek?  A popular ILL system has disappeared — we need to uncover the consequences.

These are just two issues of many, but it seems to be they are the most obvious issues where we can find evidence of damage. There are so many more, and I encourage you to find ways to show evidence of damage being done.

Have Evidence, Will Send to the House of Commons

This evidence won’t do us a whole lot of good unless we provide it to our representatives who can speak for us in the House of Commons. A good first step is to contact your MP in your riding, but here are some other MPs who hold a position on the Heritage Committee who are in our corner, and are doing their best to bring attention to our concerns:

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

• Rob Moore, Chair (MP Fundy Royale, NB; Conservative)
• Pierre Nantel, Vice Chair (MP Longueuil-Pierre Boucher, PQ; NDP)
• Scott Simms, Vice Chair (MP Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor, ON; Liberal)
• Ray Boughen, Member (MP Palliser, SK; Conservative)
• Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, Member (MP Hochelaga, PQ; NDP)
• Gordon Brown, Member (MP Leeds-Grenville, ON; Conservative)
• Paul Calandra, Member (MP Oak Ridges-Markham, ON; Conservative)
• Andrew Cash, Member (MP Davenport, ON; NDP)
• Matthew Dubé, Member (MP Chambly-Borduas, PQ; NDP)
• Jim Hillyer, Member (MP Lethbridge, AB; Conservative)
• Blake Richards, Member (MP Wild Rose, AB; Conservative)
• Terence Young, Member (MP Oakville, ON; Conservative)
• Christine Holke David - Clerk of the Committee - 613-947-6729
• Michael Dewing - From the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament
• Marion Ménard - From the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament

Let’s Get Started

I’m going to begin with the two tasks I’ve outlined below, and I will share my results so many of us can send evidence to our MPs. Please let me know if you’d like to help me with this. Many hands mean light work

Readers’ Choice: 10 More of the Coolest Librarians Alive

By Emily Temple on Mar 29, 2013 9:00am

Earlier this week, we posted about a few of the coolest librarians we’d ever heard of, and asked you to come back to us with your own suggestions. And come back you did, with suggestions of awesome librarians we missed from San Francisco to South Africa. We’ve collated a few of your suggestions, bringing our awesome librarian list up to a round 20. We know that still doesn’t cover it, but hey — that’s not a fact we’re likely to complain about.

 

10 of the Coolest Librarians Alive

By Emily Temple on Mar 27, 2013 2:00pm

Face it: most librarians are probably cooler than you. After all, their job is to wrangle books, attract readers, and then get the two together — one of our own favorite activities. Though for many years, the librarian stereotype was a severe old lady who couldn’t stand excessive noise, the mold has changed (to the extent that even the New York Times has noticed). Now, many librarians are punk-rock agents of social change, complete with tattoos, tech savvy, and new ideas to get books to the people. After the jump, meet just a few of the very coolest librarians alive — and since we know there are hundreds out there, add your favorite book lender (or yourself) in the comments.

Canada’s information commissioner has confirmed that her office will investigate allegations that the federal government is muzzling its scientists.

The office of Suzanne Legault has concluded that a complaint made by Democracy Watch and the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Clinic in February falls within its mandate, wrote Emily McCarthy, assistant information commissioner, in a letter released Monday by Democracy Watch, an Ottawa-based non-profit organization that advocates for government accountability.

The letter, dated March 27, added that the office has notified and sent a summary of the complaint to the relevant government institutions:

• Environment Canada.
• Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
• Natural Resources Canada.
• National Research Council of Canada.
• Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
• Department of National Defence.

Treasury Board included

The letter added, “We have also determined that the Treasury Board Secretariat should be included in your complaint because of its role in relation to the development and implementation of government policies.”

Tyler Sommers, co-ordinator of Democracy Watch, said in a statement, that the group is “very pleased” about the investigation being called.

“And we will continue to push the information commissioner to get to the bottom of this situation, publicly release the results, and push the federal government to change these policies,” he added.

• Could muzzling federal scientists be illegal?
• Are Canada’s federal scientists being muzzled?

The complaint, filed on Feb. 20, suggested that federal government policy “forcing scientists to jump through hoops before speaking with the media” breaches the Access to Information Act.

The complaint included a 26-page report with 100 pages of appendices, containing details and examples, based on internal government documents previously released through freedom of information requests, along with conversations with current and former federal public servants, journalists, members of non-profit organizations, and professors at Canadian universities.

The federal Access to Information Act requires the Office of the Information Commissioner to investigate “any matter related to obtaining or requesting access to records” from federal institutions.

If, following the investigation, the commissioner finds that the evidence supports the complaint, she will make recommendations to correct the problem or “facilitate a resolution,” which typically involves mediation, but can also include a referral to the Federal Court of Canada.

The people who are winding down the controversial National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy say Environment Minister Peter Kent has nixed their plan to keep all their research public.

The government pulled funding from the roundtable a year ago, giving the advisory body until this Friday to shut down.

Acting chairman Robert Slater says the group had planned to hand over 25 years of research and analysis to think-tank Sustainable Prosperity to ensure it remained public.

But he says Kent sent him a letter last week telling him that Environment Canada would take over the information instead.

“The rights to the domain name rtee-trnee.ca will not be assigned or otherwise transferred to any outside entity, but will be transferred to Her Majesty the Queen, in right of Canada, as represented by the minister of the environment,” Kent’s directive states.

The letter also asks that no new information be added to the group’s website, even though two new documents were ready to be published, including the reflections of previous roundtable chairs and CEOs.

“Further, the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) will upload no further content to its external website, as of the date on which this direction is signed,” Kent writes.

Environment Canada did not immediately provide an explanation, but the letter commits the department to following government policies on sharing information.

“Environment Canada intends to make the information available in accordance with Government of Canada Information Management and Publications policies.”

Plan shared with government long ago

In an interview, Slater said he does not understand why the government is taking such action. He said he informed Environment Canada long ago of his plan to transfer all the research and analysis to the think-tank.

And given that the roundtable was arm’s length from the government, and shut down by the government, he continues to believe the think-tank is the right organization to maintain the roundtable’s legacy.

“Our concern is based on insuring the integrity of this intellectual property for the benefit of Canadians,” Slater said.

When the government pulled funding from the roundtable last year, ministers offered duelling explanations. Kent said it was not necessary to pay for a group that was producing research available elsewhere in the public realm.

But Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird suggested the closure was because the government did not want to pay for advice that did not fit with the government’s general direction.

The roundtable had warned repeatedly that the federal government would not be able to meet its targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions without dramatic action such as putting a price on carbon — something the Conservatives have railed against.

Environmentalists expressed alarm at the news.

“This is another example of the government attempting (to) silence dissenting voices,” said John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada.

“NRTEE was an arm’s-length agency, not a department of the government. He has shut down a plan to make this information easily accessible and bury it.”

Although federal public servants have always had a limited right to freedom of expression (as compared to private sector employees), certain government employees have recently been subjected to increasingly strict policies, or codes of conduct, which govern their behaviour both in and out of the workplace. Two recent policies effectively restrict access to the media and participation in forums for intellectual debate — such as conferences or teaching engagements. Contrary to what you might expect, these policies do not target employees in the justice, immigration or national defence departments, but rather scientists, librarians and archivists associated with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Canadian Heritage. There are two reasons why Canadians should be concerned: 1) this continues a trend of the Harper government to restrict the public’s timely access to valuable information from our experts on issues of national importance (which in turn negatively impacts the quality of our public discourse and ability to make informed decisions); and 2) some of these policies are unnecessarily restrictive and arguably in breach of section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ‑- the right to freedom of expression.

Where did these codes come from and why?

Pursuant to the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act (PSDPA), a number of government departments were required to prepare a code of conduct applicable to its employees, including the Canadian Heritage department. The stated purpose of these codes of conduct is to “strengthen the ethical culture of the public sector and contribute to public confidence in the integrity of all public institutions.” The preamble to the PSDPA itself expressly recognizes, however, that there are two competing values at stake for public servants: the duty of loyalty to the employer and the right to freedom of expression. The PSDPA purportedly strives to achieve an appropriate balance between them.

The right to freedom of expression and its limits

As early as 1985, the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that public servants have the right to express themselves on issues of public interest and that they should not be made “silent members of society” as their participation in “free and robust public discussion of public issues” was necessary to the proper functioning of  our democratic system (see Fraser at paragraphs 31‑35).

At the same time, the courts in Canada have found that the right to freedom of expression is not absolute. It is limited by the duty to ensure that the service government employees provide is (and is perceived to be) impartial and effective; it is limited by the duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada (see Haydon at paragraphs 33‑35). Accordingly, civil servants should not publicly and vigorously express opposition to the government’s policies (and harm its reputation) unless: a) the policies are illegal; b) they jeopardize the life, health or safety of the public servant or others; or c) the criticism has no impact on the employee’s ability to effectively perform the duties of a public servant or on the public’s perception of that ability (because they are unrelated to his or her work).

Notwithstanding the above, the limits on freedom of expression do not apply equally to all public servants and types of expression. In Osbourne, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the scope of the duty of loyalty was relative to the employee’s position and visibility, such that a deputy minister and clerical worker would not be required to exercise the same level of restraint (Osborne at para. 61). The following factors can and should be taken into account when assessing whether the duty of loyalty has been breached: the level of the employee within the government; the nature and content of the expression; the visibility of the expression; the sensitivity of the issue discussed; the truth of the statement made; the steps taken by the employee to determine the facts before speaking; the efforts made by the employee to raise the concerns with the employer; the extent to which the employer’s reputation was damaged; and the impact on the employer’s ability to conduct business.

The LAC Code of Conduct

There has been a great deal of uproar over the past few weeks about whether or not the new Code of Conduct (Code) imposed on Library and Archives Canada (LAC) employees is a further attempt to muzzle federal civil servants. Why the government would want to clamp down on federal librarians and archivists, who provide a wealth of information about our heritage to historians, writers, researchers and academics, is anyone’s guess.

While the LAC Code of Conduct (Code) indirectly refers to some of the relevant case law in Canada regarding the duty of loyalty and sets out reasonable policies with respect to Internet use, confidentiality and harassment, it fails to set out a reasonable policy with respect to personal or professional conflicts of interest and certainly appears to restrict the public’s access to librarians and archivists in a professional context by requiring that only “authorized spokespersons” respond to inquiries about LAC’s position on any subject.

With respect to conflicts of interest, section 4.2 and 4.4.2 of the Code are of particular interest. Section 4.2 refers to the obligation to report “high risk” activities such as a teaching position at the college or university level to the Conflict of Interest Administrator. Further, section 4.4.2 of the Code in relation to the personal, off‑duty conduct of the employee, requires the employee to obtain permission before he or she is able to accept an invitation to teach, speak at a conference, or even to merely attend a conference. These activities have all been classified as “high risk”. In all cases, regardless of whether the personal engagement has anything to do with the activities of LAC or whether the employee is presented in association with LAC, clearance from the employee’s Manager is required. This appears to be an unnecessary intrusion into the personal activities of the employee and an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression.

Public servants are required to be cautious about criticizing their employer or undermining policies related to their work in a public manner. Employees can already be disciplined for breaching law and policy in this regard and presumably they understand the limits on their free speech. Why then create additional challenges in the Code that will prevent employees from engaging in intellectual debate and educational or professional development opportunities?

Further, the Code defines “employee” to include students, casual workers, volunteers and contractors, where the latter two are not even public servants. As such, the policy does not take into account the employee’s position and visibility in outlining the scope of their duties. The broad application of this policy to the various types of “employees” at LAC may well result in a breach of some of their Charter rights. The drafters of this Code have failed to strike an appropriate balance between the duty of loyalty and freedom of expression.

Finally, it is important to remember why Library and Archives Canada was created. The department’s mandate as set out in federal law is to: preserve the documentary heritage of Canada for the benefit of present and future generations; be a source of enduring knowledge accessible to all, contribute to the cultural, social and economic advancement of Canada; facilitate in Canada co-operation among communities involved in the acquisition, preservation and diffusion of knowledge; and to serve as the continuing memory of the Government of Canada and its institutions.

Given that part of LAC’s mandate is to make its information available to the public and to collaborate and contribute to the sharing of its knowledge, the sections of LAC’s new Code referred to above seem terribly inconsistent with the organization’s purpose and function. The experience of federal scientists suggests that this policy will have the effect of stifling the participation of these employees in educational and other settings through both self‑censoring and possible delay tactics on the part of LAC management. Both employees and the public will suffer. It will be essential in the coming days for all interested organizations and employees to continue to make their concerns known and to press for revisions to the Code. The alternative will be a lengthy battle through a grievance process at which point much damage will already have been done.

Iler Campbell LLP is a law firm serving co-ops, not-for-profits, charities, and socially-minded small business and individuals in Ontario.

Note: Pro Bono provides legal information designed to educate and entertain readers. But legal information is not the same as legal advice — the application of law to an individual’s specific circumstances. While efforts are made to ensure the legal information provided through these columns is useful, we strongly recommend you consult a lawyer for assistance with your particular situation to obtain accurate advice.

Save Library and Archives Canada Update – March 2013

LAC gives up on purchased acquisitions of Canadian history

In 2009, LAC announced a 10-month moratorium on purchasing acquisitions.  Now, almost four years later, acquisitions have still not resumed.  LAC’s purchased acquisitions – items  of national significance  acquired from private individuals or organizations – constitute  an essential part of the LAC collection mandate. They offer Canadians insight into the unofficial stories of Canada’s past.   The gaps that have been created in our historical record as a result of this cessation will seriously compromise the ability of present and future generations to know our history.

Antiquarian booksellers, previously an important supplier of rare material to LAC, have all but given up on offering their significant Canadiana to our national library and archives.

“ABAC (The Antiquarian Booksellers of Canada) remains disappointed that the Harper Government continues its active role in the destruction of Canada’s historical depository, Library and Archives Canada.   Because of the policies and cuts of this government, the library has abandoned the acquisitions of historical pieces of Canadiana, and now most booksellers have given up offering LAC important pieces of Canadian history.” Liam Mcgahern, president of the Antiquarian Booksellers Association of Canada (ABAC)

Joseph Hall, Toronto Star, “Historical letters not wanted at Library and Archives Canada, critics say”, March 10, 2013 http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/03/10/historical_letters_not_wanted_at_library_and_archives_canada_critics_say.html

Interlibrary Loans Service Closed

In spite of widespread protest from user groups from across the country, the Interlibrary Loans Service (ILL) of Library and Archives Canada officially closed its doors on Friday February 15 2013. The ILL at LAC allowed any Canadian library to borrow material from our national library at Library and Archives Canada when the material is not available elsewhere. Without this service, the only access is if individuals travel to Ottawa to consult books and other documents that previously could have been forwarded directly to their local library.

In the fiscal year 2012-2013 alone LAC filled 21,294 requests for loans and copies from its collections and helped locate materials at other facilities in response to another 11,658 requests. The loss of ILL is a huge a blow to Canadians’ ability to access to our collective history.

LAC officials have defended the cut with the claim that Canadians will have digital access to LAC’s holdings. This assertion is, simply put, a lie. CAUT’s access to information request revealed that approximately 0.5% of LAC holdings (both textual and non-textual) have been digitized to date. Based on LAC’s own estimated costs for the digitization, digitizing LAC’s books, journals, and newspapers alone would cost between $1.5 billion and $3.5 billion which, at the current rate of spending on digitization (approx $5 million annually), would take LAC 300-700 years.

Visit John D Reid’s blog to read the farewell letter written by the staff of the Interlibrary Loan Service of Library and Archives Canada: http://anglo-celtic-connections.blogspot.ca/2013/02/60-years-of-interlibrary-loan-service.html

Charelle Evelyn, “National library cuts severing ties with past,” The Prince George Citizen, January 28 2013 http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/article/20130108/PRINCEGEORGE0101/301089966/-1/PRINCEGEORGE/national-library-cuts-severing-ties-with-past

LAC’s new Code of Conduct

In January 2013, LAC’s Code of Conduct: Values and Ethics came into effect. The code is a clear indication of the contempt with which LAC administration treats its staff. The code outlines severe restrictions on staff behavior both in their public and personal lives.

Professional development activities such as attending conferences, teaching, publishing, or working with LAC client organizations were all activities which were promoted, even celebrated, as important staff activities in the past. LAC’s new code of conduct qualifies these activities as “high risk” and lays out a series of restrictive conditions that employees must meet before they can engage in these activities without discipline.

LAC employees’ personal activities, including use of social media, are also restricted. The code goes as far as to assert that an employee could be subject to disciplinary measures if their commentary about LAC or the Canadian government, made in a limited access forum, accidently became public.

The code further includes a provision encouraging employees to report on one another.

The outcry over the muzzling of LAC staff has exploded in the media. Please see the following list of links to recent media coverage of this issue: Margaret Munro’s story “Canada’s federal librarians fear being ‘muzzled’”, March 16, 2013: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Federal+librarians+fear+being+muzzled+under+code+conduct/8105500/story.html

Margaret Munro’s follow up story “ABCs of ‘behaviour regulation’ for federal librarians and archivists”, March 19, 2013: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/national/ABCs+behaviour+regulation+federal+librarians+archivists/8122156/story.html

On March 19th, in the House of Commons, James Moore, the Minister responsible for Library and Archives Canada, distanced himself from the LAC administration and their “Code of Conduct” (more appropriately named “Muzzle for librarians and archivists”): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlEYlzwvJXg&feature=youtu.be

Daniel Caron’s response: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Balance+freedom+responsibility/8129270/story.html

CAUT’s Executive Director, James Turk, interview on Radio-Canada International: http://www.rcinet.ca/english/daily/interviews-2012/14-44_2013-03-18-librarians-warned-of-loyalty-duty-to-canada-s-government-high-risk-activities/

Myron Groover’s, chair of British Columbia Library Association’s Information Policy Committee, interview on As it Happens: http://www.cbc.ca/player/AudioMobile/As+It+Happens/ID/2352464065/

Writer’s Union of Canada letter: http://www.writersunion.ca/news/chilling-code-conduct-library-and-archives-canada#.UUsVE1OOLg0.twitter

An editorial in the Calgary Herald – March 25, 2013: http://www.calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/Editorial+Ottawa+muzzling+librarians+free+speech/8146848/story.html

For more information about the Save Library and Archives Canada campaign visit our website at www.savelac.ca or contact:

Rosa Barker (613-726-5166) barker@caut

Angela Regnier (613-726-5186) regnier@caut.ca

 

Dr. Daniel J. Caron
Deputy Head and Librarian and Archivist of Canada
Library and Archives Canada
550 de la Cité Blvd
Gatineau, Quebec K1A 0N4

Re: Library and Archives Canada Code of Conduct: Values and Ethics

Dear Dr. Caron,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA) concerning the
Library and Archives Canada Code of Conduct: Values and Ethics(or LAC Code of Conduct).

Established in 1975, the Association of Canadian Archivists is a national not-for-profit
organization representing over 600 archivists in Canada. With headquarters in Ottawa, the
ACA’s mandate is to provide the archival profession leadership and to facilitate an
understanding and appreciation of Canada’s archival heritage.

Public servants, including the archivists at LAC, should be guided by rules of conduct in their
daily work and in their interactions with the public. However, the ACA is concerned with the
effect that some provisions of the LAC Code of Conduct could have. Section 4.4.2 of the LAC
Code of Conduct identifies teaching, speaking at conferences, and other personal engagements as
“high risk.” Presumably engaging in similar professional association and related work, such as
committee membership, editing, and publishing, is also “high risk” behaviour.

LAC archivists have long been leaders in the Canadian archival profession. Indeed, many were
founding members of the ACA. LAC archivists have served as editors for Archivaria, chaired
ACA Conference Programme Committees, and volunteered on numerous ACA boards and
committees. LAC employs some of the leading thinkers and professionals in the archival field.
LAC archivists have helped to advance archival theory and practice by writing, teaching and
presenting on developments and issues in the archival world. A source of knowledge to their
peers, federal archivists have enhanced LAC’s reputation as a leader in the archival community,
not only in Canada but throughout the world. And so, we are concerned that the LAC Code of
Conduct defines these contributions to archival knowledge as possibly being “high risk”
behaviour. Far from being negative, these activities have only served to enrich the archival
profession and LAC’s standing amongst its peers.

I look forward to discussing this matter with you further.

Best Regards,

Original signed by Loryl MacDonald

Loryl MacDonald
ACA President

 

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Balance+freedom+responsibility/8129270/story.html#ixzz2OZqa2hy2

Date: 23 March 2013

Dr. Carolyn Bennett
MP, St. Paul’s
1650 Yonge Street, Suite 103
Toronto, Ontario M4T 2A2

Dear Dr. Bennett:

First, thank you for opening this letter. It comes unsolicited, as I’m very concerned about recent activities in our government, and I’d like to ask for your help.

As you know, last weekend Libraries and Archives Canada (LAC) implemented a new code of conduct for employees of LAC, which require them to clear “high risk” activities such as teaching and speaking at conferences with their managers, for fear of creating a conflict of interest with their employer. This new code also states that LAC employees are obligated to a “duty of loyalty” to the “duly elected government”.

I’m also sure you are aware of the exchange during last Monday’s Question Period when Andrew Cash (MP for Davenport) accused Heritage Minister James Moore of being afraid of librarians – a back-handed way of addressing the appalling code of conduct introduced by LAC. For the online video, see http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/03/19/andrew-cash-librariansharper_n_2907935.html.

Since 2004, LAC has been cutting services, and more recently has been removing content from their web site, with no longterm preservation plan for paper-based or digital content. For a detailed list of services in decline at LAC, please see the list

Ex Libris has put together at http://exlibris.pbworks.com/w/page/63815458/Ex%20Libris%20Association%20Backgrounder%20on%20Library%20and%20Archives%20Canada.

If it is indeed true, as Minister Moore claims, that he did not know about the Code of Conduct being introduced by Daniel Caron, then what needs to happen next is a conversation with Dr. Caron. Several of my colleagues have tried to arrange a meeting with him several times in the past year, and these meetings are repeatedly cancelled.

Monday evening, Minister Moore responded via Twitter to several librarian colleagues of mine regarding the Code of Conduct imposed by LAC. The Minister insisted he knew nothing about the code. You can see the Twitter exchange at http://storify.com/mjecclestone/conversations-with-james-moore.

Dr. Bennett, as your supporter and a member of your constituency, I am asking you to support me in questioning the recent actions at LAC. As a citizen, I can post my distress to Facebook and Twitter, and generally make a ruckus. I have also asked the CBC to pay attention to this issue, and fortunately both “As it Happens” and Jian Ghomeshi has discussed it on the air.

But, to really make an impact, I need my representative in Ottawa to bring this issue to the fore in the House of Commons. As demonstrated in 2011 when the long-form census was eliminated, the Conservative government has a solid tactic for dealing with opposing opinions — they remain silent during the public uproar and wait for it to pass. And then, they continue to implement their unpopular decision, with little concern for expert opinion, public sentiment or any acknowledgement of the harm it will do to our country. It is appalling that the Conservative government continually rejects the use of high quality data to make decisions. It is my understanding that there are no professionally trained librarians or archivists in senior management roles at LAC; I cannot understand how LAC can strive to be responsible for our national heritage when the staff lack the training, the understanding and the passion for cultural preservation.

When the long-form census was cut in 2011, the research, science and library community made a great deal of noise, drummed up media outrage, and then it died down while the Conservatives carried on with destroying our long-standing collection of Canadian social statistics. Many of us continue to mourn the loss of this important data-gathering tool and know the damage it will inflict on our social structures as time goes on. This time, I am encouraging my colleagues working in the library and archives profession to not back down. I am determined to keep up the noise for as long as it takes, because the preservation of and access to Canada’s heritage is too important to ignore.

If there is anything I can do to facilitate your information gathering on this issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have been documenting these horrifying activities at LAC and the reaction from the media and Canadian provincial library associations on my blog at http://kimberlysilk.com.

I have attached a digital PDF of this communication to this email, and a paper copy will arrive at your Toronto office in the near future.

Thank you for your attention; I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Silk , MLS
Librarian and Concerned Canadian Citizen
Data Librarian, Martin Prosperity Institute
Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
President, Special Libraries Association Toronto Chapter