By Jim Clifford
Today in Canada you can legally distribute, download and create new editions of George Orwell’s 1984, Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, Vita Sackville-West’s Passenger to Teheran, Georges Lefebvre’s work on the French revolution, Ian Fleming’s Bond novels, Ernest Hemingway’s many short stories and novels, and for all the fans of the staples thesis, the works of Canadian political economist, Harold Innis. Many thousands of lesser known authors also fall into the public domain each year, creating a growing source base for digital history and the digital humanities more generally. There is also a flood of audio and film recordings entering the public domain under Canada’s current rule that limits copyright to 70 years after the recording (it was 50 years until earlier this year).
This is very good for scholarship and teaching. It makes it possible for digital humanists to create innovative digital editions of the public domain material. Project Gutenberg Canada and other websites are allowed to post a growing catalog of open material that we can use to build corpora of resources for research and text mining. As professors, we take advantage of the internet and public domain material to assign free readings for students in our undergraduate classes. Material from the 19th century is safe, but the new rules will limit what we can use for teaching mid-20th century history (we can still use one chapter or 10% under fair dealing).
Four years ago Canada passed the Copyright Modernization Act through a relatively open and democratic process where experts and stakeholders testified before parliamentary committees. The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) has changed all of that. In the context of secret negotiations, this emerging trade agreement threatens to force Canada to rewrite this law. Did the negotiators consult any stakeholder in the archives, libraries, publishing industry or experts in internet law?
What is truly alarming, is that it appears the trade agreement copyright clauses are retroactive. Continue reading

For some years I taught an undergraduate seminar on the history of the Canadian left, and one of the things students did at the first meeting was to try to name people who represented the contemporary “left” in Canada. Last year, the answers included Jack Layton, Olivia Chow and Thomas Mulcair, an indication that at least in the student imagination the New Democratic Party is still a force on the left. In the case of Layton, who died in 2011, the student made a strong case for his continued influence after his death. They also identified Elizabeth May and David Coon, the latter being the Green Party leader in our province who was soon elected to the legislature. Two other party leaders were named, Justin Trudeau (Liberals) and Miguel Figueroa (Communists). A local anti-poverty activist was named. I can see why Rick Mercer was included, less so Peter Mansbridge! The previous offering of the course included some of the above plus David Suzuki and Naomi Klein, Ed Broadbent and Megan Leslie, Buzz Hargrove and Pam Palmeter. As you can see, it is an eclectic picture that confirms the challenge students face in identifying the face of the contemporary left. 
At a 1923 meeting of the Great War Veterans Association (GWVA) in Ottawa, General William Antrobus Griesbach, former Member of Parliament for Edmonton West and Senator for Alberta, remarked on the expected role of the ex-soldier in Canadian political life. “I had an idea at one time,” he explained, “that after the war over half of the Canadian parliament would be men who had served in the war. I had an idea it would hardly be possible for a man to be elected to parliament who had not served his country in the war on active service.” To his disappointment, at the time of this speech, only a handful of sitting MPs had fought in the Great War. Although he cautioned against organized political action by veterans’ groups, Griesbach argued, “I say that the ex-service men should be active in politics, active on all sides.”
