Promises Made: An Interpretive Analysis of Canada’s Public Library Legislation

Mary F. Cavanagh

Abstract

This paper is an interpretive textual analysis of current Canadian provincial and territorial public library

statutes and regulations framed through the dual lenses of boundary objects and legal statutory

interpretation. Six provincial legislative debates preceding passage of their public library statutes were

also analyzed. Definitions, purpose statements, and provisions related to library services were

compared; public library principles, values and services were identified. Within the framework of

statutory interpretation, texts are more varied than similar. Most are silent on service and digital

features of contemporary public libraries promoted as ‘more than just books.’ Saskatchewan’s statute is

exceptionally detailed and future-oriented.

Keywords: boundary object; legislation; textual analysis; public libraries; Canada

Acknowledgement: The author would like to acknowledge Merrilee Rasmussen who provided ongoing

counsel in the area of statutory interpretation.

Introduction

Search “Canada” “public libraries” and your first page of hits turns up links, keywords, and headlines

covering the vast landscape of online interaction that merely hints at the complex business of the

modern public library. From lending SAD lamps, musical instruments, carpenter tools or wireless

hotspots, to opening millennial-hip, architecturally award-winning, community living rooms in cities,

towns, and villages in rural, northern, and urban Canada, to debunking fake news, or hosting live music

concerts or being embroiled in fiercely contested public debates around why someone can or cannot

use the library’s meeting room or use the library’s public internet access, public libraries are deeply

embedded, beyond just connecting books to readers, in their local communities’ day to day lives, and

simultaneously connected provincially and nationally through resource-sharing agreements and

advocacy campaigns.

Public libraries remain unique, open, accessible and highly-trusted institutions, enabling

individual learning and literacy, entrepreneurship, access to physical and digital culture, and social hubs

for belonging and participation. It is easy to take local public libraries for granted because some regions

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

of Canada have had access to some form of public library service since the late 19 th century. In total

there are approximately 3,415 public libraries in Canada (Schrader and Brundin 2012). Many people

have immediate, personal experiences informing what they think a public library is or ought to be.

Moreover, when a crisis seriously threatens a library’s viability and future, whether through natural

disaster or political process, their community appears to instantly know what’s at stake, organizing a

collective response and taking action to protect and preserve their very own educational and cultural

lighthouse (e.g., Ensing 2016; Peet 2016). With the notable exception of LIS political economy

researchers (e.g., Stevenson 2011) what is often overlooked among a majority of LIS researchers is the

fact that virtually all public libraries are first and foremost government-created entities and in this sense,

their foundations are firstly attributed to these often invisible, government statutes.

Newfoundland-Labrador and Saskatchewan recently introduced library budgets in 2015 and

2017 which common wisdom held that if implemented, would have gutted much of rural public library

service in these jurisdictions (O’Connor 2017; Roberts and Ensing 2016). Community response in each

case was swift and widespread, and resulted in cuts being rescinded, buying time for more thorough,

consultative reviews to take place. In both instances, larger questions about how public libraries are

rationalized and resourced including legislative responsibilities were brought into these public debates.

This paper was prompted by these two provincial debates, specifically by the Saskatchewan

experience. As the first work in a larger case study of that province’s public library “crisis” in the spring

of 2017, it introduces an analysis of contemporary public library legislation in Canada that compliments

the few related references (Helling 2012; Wilson 2008) an extensive literature search revealed. Whereas

earlier work takes a descriptive approach to understanding the governance foundations and critical

elements constituting public libraries in Canada, this paper takes an explicitly and thoroughly,

interpretive turn, premised by several central questions. What does public library legislation promise to,

and then continuously negotiate with, its citizen-members in terms of library values, principles, and

services? How should we interpret these documents in answering this question? More narrowly for LIS

researchers, this paper responds to these research questions: 1) How does legislation fit into the larger

landscape of public library research? 2) Methodologically and theoretically, how can we approach a

study of public library legislation?

Literature Review and Framework

Public library legislation has received relatively little attention or in-depth study in LIS research except as

its passage is accounted or referenced often in provincial or regional public library histories (e.g., Brice

2

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

2010; Maher 1967). Wilson’s (2008) overview of Canadian public library legislation is broad and

descriptive, comparing and contrasting structure, governance, and funding across provincial and

territorial statutes. Helling’s (2012) study focuses on various countries’ national policies only, updating

Gardner’s selective international coverage (1971). The former includes a chapter on Canada’s libraries

and makes brief reference to the provincial and territorial (P/T) statutes while also noting the “difficulty

in describing the management of Canada’s public libraries” (31). The latter briefly acknowledges the

differing public library legislative foundations in Ontario and Quebec.

Public libraries and their role in public policy and the political process including libraries as

government agencies have been studied in various ways. Stevenson (2011; 2016) has critically examined

Canadian public libraries as government agencies and more specifically the labour provided by public

librarians in these libraries using a post-Fordist lens. Related but still tangential to this paper’s focus is

the research on Canadian library leadership, advocacy and the political decision-making processes (e.g.,

Stenstrom and Haycock 2014). Cavanagh (2015) examined public library membership as collective

organizational and political action. In the United States leading research on public libraries as

government agencies clusters with Bertot, Jaeger, Gorham and Sarin (2014; 2017). Buschman has

produced several significant texts situating public libraries in their political and democratic contexts

(2003, 2018), again drawing largely on data from the United States. Library advocacy studies tend to

ignore legislation focussing instead on demonstrations of library value (e.g., Huysman and Oomes 2013).

This study is the first to closely and comprehensively study Canadian public library legislation.

Figure 1 represents the theoretical framework for this analysis. This study draws on legal

statutory interpretation and on an information sciences’ perspective on boundary objects (Huvila et al.

2010; Star 2010), referencing key concepts from Sullivan’s (2007) statutory interpretation, and through

close reading of key documentary sources. These library statutes and associated regulations are

important, yet often overlooked objects or “relational props” (Huizing and Cavanagh 2011) in public

library practice because of their unique political properties of instantiation, ongoing translation, and

enactment.

INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE

Library Statutes as Boundary Objects

Boundary objects (BOs) are valuable theoretical constructs (Star and Griesemer 1989) as they “negotiate

meaning and help to understand and articulate connects and disconnects between communities,

cultures, and information infrastructures” (Huvila et al. 2017, 1807), a scholarly rendering that also

3

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

sounds uncannily like a contemporary public library. They can take many forms in a multitude of

contexts. The library statutes analyzed for this study are both physical documents and conceptual

representations of the public policy behind contemporary public library practice in Canada. A boundary

object (BO) is “something people act toward and with. Its materiality derives from action, not from a

sense of prefabricated stuff or ‘thing’-ness … [it is] at once temporal, based in action, subject to

reflection and local tailoring, and distributed throughout all of these dimensions” (Star 2010, 603). These

public library statutes have been studied as living documents, including their legal, political and social

contexts; they act and enable the practice of public library, across and in their local geo-political spaces.

As BOs, they are actors in the broadest social theoretical practice or actor-network called public library.

Library statutes connect the abstract idea with the ongoing happenings of the public library. If we were

to move away from the traditional view of the noun, public library, less as “prefabricated stuff” or

“thing-ness” and instead interpret it as a verb, as ‘public library-ing’, how might we theorize public

library action and translations differently? As BOs, these public library statutes bring their library

communities, their political and administrative actors, their protocols, rules and structures as legislated

public services, into being and action.

The research problem addressed by this study is not strictly legal nor is the researcher a

qualified legal expert. However the research questions posed are addressing problems of interpretive

meaning about the foundational legal texts constituting Canadian public libraries. Therefore, to study

public libraries in their broader and narrower geo-political, legal and library contexts, this combined

legal, interpretive approach to statutes must be incorporated into the theoretical framework and textual

analytic approach.

Legal Statutory Interpretation

Canadian public libraries are created through systems of government. They come into being only by first

being recognized by their provincial or territorial governments as legal entities according to the terms of

each jurisdiction’s relevant statute. In Canada, P/T governments are responsible for drafting, passing,

and then administering public library legislation in their geographic regions. Legislation is also a form of

codification or systematic ordering. Library statutes are drafted by legal experts in close collaboration

with designated administrators and subject authorities according to standardized and rule-based

documentary style and structure (Sullivan 2007). Draft bills are tabled in Parliament followed by a formal

process that may include political debate and which is concluded after several readings, by a vote. After

4

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

a public library bill is passed and becomes law, it is the responsibility of the politicians’ delegated

authority to implement the statute’s provisions.

In the field of Canadian legal research, statutory interpretation is a technical and highly

structured sub-discipline, “at once the most practical and the most theoretical of subjects” (Sullivan

2007, 4). Formal statutory interpretation can be applied to other types of legal documents and has

among several over-arching goals, “to indicate how the rules are used in analysis of legislative texts.”

Rules are an important concept in statutory interpretation, but unlike rules applied to library

classification or cataloging, statutory rules are provided to “supply … a vocabulary for describing

interpretation problems” (30). They give courts structure and guidance in coming to decisions on

meaning-based problems depicted often through multiple, subjective, and conflicting perspectives.

Importantly, the leading rule that informs all others is referred to as Driedger’s Modern Principle. It

obliges courts to go beyond considering the text alone, and to consider the “entire context” which

includes additionally the “scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament”

(Driedger in Sullivan, 41).

Methodology

Sullivan (2007) provides a practical approach and series of analytic perspectives that align

methodologically with social sciences’ qualitative methods (Glaser and Strauss 1967) with LIS practice-

based scholarship (Huvila et al. 2017; Savolainen 2008). The unit of analysis is the most current

provincial or territorial statute including amendments, and where they exist, associated regulations,

which together constitute the statute as legislative instrument. Statutes, above all, have an instrumental

purpose that is to carry out the political intentions of their governments. Related government

documents including legislative debates, web pages, and library policies were reviewed as contextual

data sources but only as they made reference to provincial or territorial statutes.1 As material objects,

indeed classic boundary objects of public library practice, these statutes literally enact public libraries; as

governance documents they have cardinal status. And yet they have been rarely studied or referenced,

directly or tangentially, in public library scholarship.

The researcher assumed the role of textual critic of Canadian public library legislative structures,

and practices, aided by her prior experience as public library practitioner in several of these provincial

jurisdictions, and in the wide Canadian field. Using convenience sampling, and to triangulate textual

data, three in-depth interviews with former provincial public library leaders (Int1, Int2, Int3) were also

conducted, on the legal and policy processes for enacting or revising public library legislation. In addition

to their library expertise, one of these interview participants also had expert knowledge of, and

5

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

experience in, drafting and interpreting, provincial, territorial, and federal statutes. This participant

(Int2) was involved in drafting Saskatchewan’s 1996 public library legislation, and therefore provides a

unique perspective on this subject, combining both public library, and statutory interpretation, expert

knowledge.

In sequence, the first round of analysis focused on each P/T statute, associated regulations,

including amendments. Each statute was reviewed and coded descriptively then interpretively, using the

following categories for data selection and analysis: date of original statute and associated regulations;

total number of clauses in the statute; inclusion of purpose statement or preamble; core definitions;

references to resources; to resource sharing; to specific library services; and to technology; major

amendments since initial statute. Numerous iterative readings were conducted of each P/T statute and

regulation. Initial sensitizing concepts (Bowen 2006) beyond explicitly stated definitions included library

services, technology, information, vision, purpose, principles, and co-operation. Explicit references to

these terms were noted alongside any implicit references suggesting aspects of these sensitizing

concepts. Notable inclusions and omissions, and common and exceptional elements were also noted.

Data were compiled into spreadsheets to enable comparison across all provinces and territories.

The second phase of data collection and analysis entailed identifying and retrieving legislative

debate transcriptions on which the current statutes were tabled then passed into law, in their respective

legislatures. These texts (approximately 66,400 words) were analyzed using iterative, inductive coding

techniques as employed in qualitative research methods (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Texts were

reviewed, key segments highlighted, conceptually and thematically coded, reviewed, and re-coded

several times. The codes and concepts emerged from those elements identified in earlier statute and

regulation analysis. The findings are presented first as an analysis of the statute texts themselves

reported under four themes, followed by a separate analysis of the debates and the primary emerging

concepts. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of these findings, study limitations, and

implications for future research.

Findings

Overview of Statutory Textual Analysis

Each jurisdiction’s social, economic, political, and cultural histories and current life have undoubtedly

influenced their respective public library histories, traditions, governance models, values and services.

These elements form the broad contextual backdrop to the statute. Moreover it is to be expected that

even within the norms and rules for writing statutes, every jurisdiction also has its own drafting style

and practices, referred to by one interview participant (Int1) as the “personality of the jurisdiction.” This

6

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

review makes no claim of constructing a single, dominant or correct assessment or interpretation.

Instead, the findings and discussion form but one commentary and interpretive perspective (Age 2011),

and compliment previous work (Wilson, 2008).

Table 1 provides an overview of several data elements describing these P/T statutes. These data

offer a slightly broader perspective drawing on Driedger’s principle for considering statutory context.

INSERT TABLE 1 HERE

The date range for all statutes covers a period of twenty-two years, from 1987 to 2011. Three

statutes dated from the 1980’s; the majority (six) dated from the 1990’s, and four statutes dated from

2000’s with the most recent being New Brunswick. The debates from legislative assemblies during which

sittings these bills were passed into law, and on which the present statutes were based, span a wider

period of twenty-six years between 1984 and 2010. Eight statutes have associated regulations. Three

statutes include purpose statements. In terms of length, Saskatchewan’s library act is much longer than

all other statutes with 83 clauses; it is also significantly longer than the next longest statute from British

Columbia with 62 clauses. The shortest statutes with fewer than ten clauses are from the three

territorial legislatures. There is no apparent relationship between date of publication and length

indicated by number of clauses. Six provincial legislatures debated their library bills before royal assent

and passage into law: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Saskatchewan; the

remaining provinces and territories passed their respective library bills without formal debate. Analysis

of these debates follows later in the paper.

Purpose Statements

Although Sullivan is clear that all units and provisions of a statute together constitute the “Act as a

whole” and are to be considered in any purposive analysis, definitions and purpose provisions are the

foundational interpretive provisions of any statute. She further explains, “purpose statements are relied

upon to establish the meaning of the text, … as a standard against which proposed interpretations are

tested.” Purpose statements are viewed with greatest authority in any interpretive analysis. They draw

attention to the “principles and policies that should inform the exercise of discretion conferred by the

Act … they are to be relied upon in every interpretive exercise” (141). Purpose statements are intended

to be interpreted within the “legislative scheme of which it is a part” or in other words in their

“relationship to other provisions in the Act and related legislation” (200).

7

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

Only three statutes reviewed for this analysis, contained purpose statements: BC, NS, and SK.

Because of their relative importance as provisions in interpreting library statutes, the full texts of these

sections are excerpted in Table 2 – Public library statutes purpose provisions.

INSERT TABLE 2 HERE

A few observations can be made regarding length, structure, language, and mechanisms. Purpose

statements are not mandatory although Sullivan (2007) indicates they are increasingly commonplace.

Slightly surprising in this dataset is that the later statutes do not have purpose provisions; the three acts

with this provision date from 1990 and 1996. It is possible to have multiple purpose statements in a

purpose provision and there is no rank order of importance among the individual statements. In cases

where sub-clauses may potentially conflict with one another, this structure can pose interpretation

challenges. In each of these statements, there are no obvious conflicts among the various sub-clauses.

Both BC and SK reference multiple purposes whereas NS references one purpose with three

associated sub-clauses. In the case of SK, there are two distinct purpose provisions that immediately

follow each other in that Act’s scheme. This structuring decision and, indeed the texts themselves,

indicate that the overall Act has a purpose with elements for establishing a provincial public library

system; the subsequent section 2 purpose provision specifically lists the purposes of that provincial

public library system. This ordering scheme, textually, logically, and interpretively binds these two

provisions together. Although it would be possible to understand the Act, with only the first purpose

provision, section 2 specifically and unambiguously assigns authority and responsibility for equitable

access to basic library services, for the union catalogue, interlibrary loans, reciprocal borrowing and

autonomous library boards, not to a provincial library authority, but to a provincial public library system

defined as all local, regional, northern libraries and library systems in the province, notably excluding the

Saskatchewan Provincial Library. Thus, while the provincial library is excluded in provisions regarding

service delivery, it “shall” function as “the central library for Saskatchewan” and play a critical

supporting role to “co-ordinate, facilitate, and develop the activities of the provincial public library

system” (s.7(2)).

In examining the language used, and the specific content included within each of these purpose

provisions, distinct differences can be noted. BC’s purpose has aspirational phrases while also taking an

operational approach to the Act’s overall purpose. The Act aspires to “encourage” the growth or

“extension” of public library service and to also “support improvements.” How this growth and

8

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

improvement should occur as stated in section 2(b), however, is not aspirational: it involves establishing

and/or continuing operation of various types of libraries and groups of libraries.

The NS purpose statement reads in part, like a traditional, no-fail recipe for public library

service: just the basics, not particularly aspirational or ambitious, but technically complete nevertheless.

It suggests a status quo, traditional regional configuration. Two key actors are identified; the Provincial

Library is named to coordinate not services, but library-based “activities” via regional public libraries.

The implication is that the vision and responsibility for service rests solely with individual regional

libraries. Unlike the BC provision, NS is silent on who is involved or how “support services to libraries”

are to be provided, on what these might consist of, and on what principle or goal (e.g., “improvement”)

they could or should enact.

SK’s two purpose statements combined, have the tone and relatively detailed language of a

primer on public library fundamentals to create a highly structured, complex, distributed, yet

interdependent, resource-sharing network, with no central hub. As noted, the basic premise of the SK

purpose statements is to create a “provincial public library system” and in this way section 3 suggests a

vision of library service that is first and foremost provincial in scope. The Act’s overall purpose is to

“ensure equitable access to basic library services” and the mechanism specified for achieving that vision

is a “provincial public library system.” Section 3(2) purpose statement directing the establishment of the

provincial public library system repeats this over-arching principle of “equitable access to basic library

services.” Where the Act’s first purpose statement sets the goal to “ensure” this access, the second

purpose statement’s goal is to “facilitate” this access. This language makes a nuanced connection

between a higher-level goal and a more operational objective for achieving that goal. Specifying the four

ways this provincial system will be created and operationalized in both purpose statements limits

potential ambiguity regarding how equitable access is to be achieved. This level of specificity is

exceptional when compared with BC and NB purpose statements.

These statutory purpose statements suggest dimensions of a vision for public libraries

individually in their respective jurisdictions and when read together. Several library service values and

guiding principles can be gleaned from these statements – the majority from the SK statement: libraries

can always be improved, regardless of size or location, together libraries offer equity of access and

service; a province’s public libraries operate as a collective while individual libraries also retain local

autonomy; reciprocity in lending is valued; and inter-institutional cooperation such as occurs in creating

a union catalogue. These interpretations will be further examined by at how each statute directly or

indirectly makes reference to library services intended for their publics.

9

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

Legal Definition of Library

Many Canadian federal and provincial statutes and regulations begin with a section or subsection setting

out definitions of terms. As Sullivan notes, these definitions are meant to “clarify rather than qualify”

the ordinary meanings, “to create precise meanings and sharp distinctions, to resolve doubt.” Sullivan

explains a distinction between exhaustive and non-exhaustive definitions (69) that is helpful in

comparing definitions of key terms. The former is usually introduced by the word, “means” comprising

the “sole meaning the word may bear throughout the statute” whereas the latter is introduced by the

word, “includes” “that adds or subtracts from the ordinary meaning of the defined term.” Four purposes

pertain to inclusion of statutory definitions: a) to create a short form of reference for lengthy

expressions; b) to narrow the usual scope of a word or expression; c) to enlarge the usual scope of a

word or expression; and d) to resolve possible doubt or ambiguity.

The “ordinary meaning” or dictionary definition of library begins as “A place set apart to contain

books for reading, study, or reference” with other references to collections of “objects of a person’s

study”; a public library is defined as “a library maintained for the use of the public, usually out of public

funds” (OED Online). These understandings are construed as the layperson’s “ordinary” meanings. In

this context and analysis, we also consider the legal meaning of the entity called library, or the

characteristics which taken together legally constitute a library. It seems obvious that any legislation

governing public libraries, would begin with some kind of scoping of the concept of either library or

public library precisely in response to these questions and for the purposes Sullivan notes. Of the

thirteen statutes, however, no definitions of any terms are provided by NS, QC or YK. Of the remaining

jurisdictions, one province (ON) provides definitions but does not define either of these specific terms.

AB and BC define public library through reference to categories of libraries or library organizing entities

– e.g., municipal, community or regional, association or system – as those included in the Act. NL, NU

and NT define public libraries referentially as those entities established by their respective Acts. MB, NB,

PE, and SK each defines library by listing multiple criteria which mean library. This last cluster of

definitions warrants closer examination.

MB defines a library by itemizing a list of elements of its “collection” (e.g., “books, periodicals, …

and any relational medium”) and within the same definition, and by specifying the purposes of that

collection, “for the preservation and diffusion of knowledge, or … intended for circulation or reference.”

PE also defines a library as a “collection” also for purposes of “circulation or reference” with the

additional scoping of the term by reference to buildings or spaces; library means “the physical premises

in which such materials are kept” such as “branch libraries, mobile units and reading rooms.” NB and SK

10

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

offer the most detailed and far-reaching definitions. The NB definition of library references “physical

facilities” and “collections” with two types of associated purposes: for “lending or consultation”; and

collections having “literary or artistic merit and having educational, recreational or informational value.”

Echoes of historically traditional public library missions statements can be found in the sub-clause

referring to “merit” and “value” of a library’s collections. In addition to including collections in the sub-

clauses of the definition of library, exceptionally, NB and SK statutes also include reference to staff, their

expertise and the services they provide, within the scope of their definitions of library. The SK definition

of library is the most robust in terms of capturing the contemporary public library purposes and services.

That definition begins with a general statement, that a ‘”library” means an information centre’”. It

continues to define library by specifying these elements: containing a collection with the purpose of

“bibliographic and intellectual access to knowledge”; having a trained staff “to provide services and

programs related to the information needs of its clientele”; and as defined by types of service points or

facilities including “branch libraries, bookmobiles, and book deposits established or used in connection

with a library.”

Other inclusions and exclusions among the definition of the concept of library or public library

among these statutes were also observed. The public aspect of public libraries was suggested only by

NB’s definition of a public library distinct from a library, as “a library where services are available

without charge to residents of the Province.” To be clear, the idea of public library service being freely

available is referenced variously in many of these statutes, though not by way of a specific definition as

in NB. Several jurisdictions define various types of organizational units of public libraries such as

“regional resource library” (NL), “central library” (MB), “community library” or “district library” (PE),

“integrated public library system” (BC), or “public library system” (NB, SK).

This brief analysis reveals there is no commonly held legal definition of library or public library in

use across Canada’s provincial and territorial library jurisdictions. However, it may be understood from

at least a handful of the jurisdictions that, broadly speaking, the constituent elements of a public library

include some or all of these aspects: collections, facilities, staff, and related services. Where the term

library is defined by referencing the acts themselves, it is possible to imply these and additional

constituent elements in the various subsequent provisions, clauses and sub-clauses.

Library Services For The Public

The first section examined for references to library services was the definition provision. Two provinces

(AB, SK) define “basic library services” and one province (PE) defines “service” by delegating

11

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

responsibilities to the Provincial Library Service; all of these definitions appear in their respective

regulations. The SK definition is again exceptional by comparison as it sets out a detailed,

comprehensive basic library service framework that many practitioners would recognize in

contemporary public library service. The main clauses of this definition are: a) “provision of a level of

service determined locally at the community level” with seven detailed specifications in sub-clauses; b)

“the development of library collections according to the needs and interests of communities,” including

three sub-clauses itemizing collection processes; and c) “the development of programs that meet local

needs for cultural, economic, education and recreational information organized around the themes of

…“ with four sub-clauses specifying distinct program objectives such as “increasing information

competencies” and “advocating library values.” Numerous aspects of this definition of basic library

services have no corresponding language, inferred or explicit, in any of the other statutes or regulations.

There are two main areas in the statutes and associated regulations where we find suggestions

of what library services might look like for their respective citizenries. In many of these jurisdictions,

more detail and elaboration is provided on their government websites and later discussion will return to

this observation. In several jurisdictions, an organizational strategy is to use the same wording across

various sections organized by type of library system (e.g., municipal libraries, inter-municipal boards,

regional libraries) and in using sub-headings referencing “Board duties”; in other cases, references to

library services are clearly specified in provisions discussing free and fee-based library services.

Both AB and ON use the same phrase referencing library services. In AB a library board shall

“organize, promote and maintain comprehensive and efficient library services” (AB s.7; s.12.5; s.17) and

in ON “shall seek to provide … a comprehensive and efficient public library service” (ON s.20). The AB

regulations further detail these services under the “Community Boards” provision where section 10 in its

entirety refers to collections, knowledgeable staff, information services, program events and exhibits,

and equipped facilities. MB does not specify services but refers only to responsibility of a regional or

municipal board to “operate” the library. Among the territorial statutes, NT is most detailed and NU’s

language is similar, as it was derived from the NT statute at its establishment in 2009. For NT, the

Minister enters into an agreement with a “library authority” agreeing to “provide staff and books,

periodicals, films, records, materials and other objects or articles of educational or cultural value” and

agrees to “provide and maintain adequate premises for use as a public library” (NT s.4(a); see NU s.5

(a)). YK refers only to the “business of the library” (YK s.5(2)) in the broadest terms. Atlantic provinces

reference services under provincial responsibilities (NB, NL); under regional library responsibilities (NS);

or under both provincial and community library provisions (PE). Like SK, PE and NB specifically reference

12

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

centralized cataloguing services and a union catalogue; NB also mentions interlibrary loan among central

services (s.8 (e)). Under section 18 of the QC statute the Minister is authorized to establish services

including collections, resource-sharing, programs, and information services. ‘Programs’ described as a

type of library service are mentioned in a few jurisdictions only (AB, NB, QC, SK).

Several, although not all, of these statutes and regulations also have provisions specifying what

constitutes free or “basic” library services. In BC’s statute, this is the only provision where library

services are specified at all; free services include access to a library building, using materials on

premises, borrowing materials and using reference and information services (BC s.46 (1-2)). AB, ON, and

PE specify the same types of services under similar provisions (AB s.36(3); ON s.23 (1); PE s.4). Uniquely

the PE statute also contains a provision titled, “Rights of Library Users” that re-states what constitutes

free services but notably in the language of rights (s.5).

From this analysis it is difficult to imagine a rich picture of what public library service in Canada

might look like. Minimally, local public library service consists of a community’s free access to collections

via physical spaces. Formats of possible materials in these collections are generally itemized, often

restrictively, occasionally non-restrictively. Maximally, the SK definition of basic service sets out the

most robust vision of local library service within a provincially coordinated context. It is also possible to

interpret various types of roles for organizing and coordinating library services among provincial and

territorial, regional, and local authorities depending on where in the statute the language appears, and

what force the particular phrases and word choice suggests.

Sullivan (2007) draws attention to an important drafting convention that distinguishes between

the words shall and may: whereas “shall is always imperative in the sense that it always imposes binding

duties or requirements” (78), “powers conferred by may are taken to be discretionary” (74). For

example, section 20 of the ON statute, Powers and duties of the board, specifies that a board “shall seek

to provide … comprehensive and efficient public library service” and later in the same provision, “may

operate special services in connection with a library as it considers necessary” (s.20(a)-(d)). PE’s

provision on provincial library service leads with the imperative, “the Provincial Library Service which

shall, … enhance and support public library services, by” sub-clauses (a) to (g) specifying obligations such

as the provision of a “centralized cataloguing service” and “inter-library cooperation with the National

Library of Canada” (s.20(f)). SK’s section 5, “Duty to provide public library services” also importantly

highlights this shall/may distinction. Sub-section 5(1) says “each public library board shall” … (a)

participate in the public library system” and “(b) provide public library services to the residents of

Saskatchewan within the area it serves” whereas 5(2) notes that “For the purposes of carrying out its

13

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

duties to subsection (1), a public library board may” followed by clauses (a) to (f) which outline the ways

in which this service could be provided. This convention is important to highlight as it also surfaces in

the later discussion of the legislative debates of public library bills.

When a statute or regulation such as SK’s explicitly details basic library services, and then

further delegates authority for delivering these services, or when a statute or regulation references

service delivery mechanisms such as inter-library loan or a union catalogue, the effect is textually and

interpretively more forceful and emphatic. In all acts, however, there appears to be minimally sufficient

language that leaves open the possibility of library services changing in minor ways over time. Were

library services to change or evolve substantively in a jurisdiction, this analysis suggests that purpose

statements and/or definitions would also have to be amended accordingly.

Finally, as might be anticipated given the years many of these statutes were passed, few

references are made to services supported through information and communications technologies

(ICTs). Moreover the evolving nature of ICTs and their changing platforms, relevance and application

within the broad range of library services, may also account for the lack of detail in this area. Of the

references that do appear, several provinces refer to “electronic databases” (AB, MB, NB), to “computer

software” (ON), to “information in … electronic, magnetic or other format” (AB). Only SK makes

reference to “publicly accessible computers” under the definition of basic library services. Most other

statutes and regulations have language related to provision of information and reference resources

where it is possible to read in a requirement to provide online access to information as is the norm in

most contemporary Canadian public libraries. The mechanisms by which such access is to be provided

are unspecified.

Legislative Debates

To gain another perspective on these primary documents, legislative debates of the proposed public

library bills resulting in their eventual enactment into law, were also retrieved and coded using a

qualitative text analysis approach (Bowen 2006). It is important to note that these debates are the direct

voices of provincial politicians, whose words may or may not have been influenced, or scripted by the

bureaucrats of the day. Distinct rhetorical style in this public, politically positioned, discourse can also be

observed in individual jurisdictions. Six primary emergent concepts were identified: the bill’s purpose,

the future, library principles, library services, library organization and autonomy. The concept of

autonomy is also a library principle but because it was such a widespread topic, it is also discussed

separately. Related aspects that are both analytic and sensitizing concepts were also derived and are

indicated under each key concept. These aspects are analytic in the sense that they are “sufficiently

14

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

generalized” to indicate common concrete entities of public libraries. With a few exceptions most of

these aspects are also sensitizing concepts in that they “yield a meaningful picture, … that enable one to

grasp the reference in terms of one’s own experience” (Glaser and Strauss 1967, 38-39). Not all aspects

appear in all debates. The words under each primary concept represent an interpretive and inductive

identification, collection and clustering of all concepts, including prevalent, infrequent and exceptional

aspects.

INSERT TABLE 3 HERE

In preambles to the various legislative debates, all speakers referenced the bill’s purpose and

put the proposed bill into their respective political and jurisdictional contexts. These statements

suggested politicians were looking both backwards and forwards in time, attempting to remedy

weaknesses or recognize changing social, cultural and educational contexts, and improve their library

services. Their comments indicated they were often responding to comments from public review

processes and anticipating future needs. Whereas all debates noted the proposed bills aimed to achieve

consistency across all types of municipalities, the AB and ON proposals also sought “a flexible

framework” (ON) and greater local flexibility and decision-making for municipalities in how these boards

govern locally. The NS bill’s purpose was described as “basically housekeeping in nature.” Several

debates referenced the future suggesting their bills that would “modernize” their legislation (BC, SK) and

“protect” existing free public library service (AB, BC). Other debates were explicit in proposing bills that

would prevent municipalities from being able to withdraw from library services (NS, SK), thereby

protecting existing service levels and maintaining consistency across their jurisdictions. The SK debate

took the idea of consistency further, noting that the proposed bill had an explicit purpose of responding

to “the need for a whole-province or one-province library system.”

The future is a concept suggested explicitly and implicitly in the logic of several of these

provincial debates. AB, BC, ON and SK debates used a variety of discursive phrases to reference their

aspirations for future library service. For AB, ‘the future’ would be technologically linked via “the

electronic highway”, understood as one of the “information systems of the future”. Both SK and AB

imagined future library service using a technology lens, as the “new age, the information age, the 21 st

century.” SK’s future library service looked like a network, whereas BC legislators note “libraries will be

much more than they are now. In fact, the electronic highway, as it is termed, will have everything to do

with access to information.” The concept of the future translated, in this instance, into anticipated

“changes in technology” was also embedded in a debate on the scope of the term public library

15

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

465

466

467

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

including what definition should be set out in the act. The same BC legislator notes, “A public library

could be construed as anything … many libraries are branching out to audiovisual, to certain parts of

technology and to computer technology. Will there be some sort of future provision to define what a

library is, so we know what falls under this act?” BC legislators also looked for and received assurances

from their political opponents that their future library service will never be a “for-charge service.” In NS,

concern for libraries of the future arose in considering changing material formats in the collection, many

involving interactive materials (e.g., computer disks, “digital store of information and text readers with

networks from library to library”). One politician further connected changing collection formats with

changing requirements in library facilities: “we must provide the people of NS with the leading-edge

library facilities. Let us not just keep house with libraries …. let us move towards the future and not

regulate for the past.”

Several library principles are embedded in the rhetoric of these political voices, and more

narrowly in any concerns raised about the wording of a particular proposed statute, or in understanding

how a statute might be interpreted and applied. These principles could also begin to frame the

theoretical and structural foundations of the public library. The most common principle addressed was a

concern to preserve existing “free” public library service, followed by a concern for urban-rural equity in

terms of access to library service (BC, MB, ON, SK). It became a recurring point of BC’s debate as several

politicians commented that the word free was nowhere to be found in the proposed bill.

Noted in several debates (BC, MB, NS) were references to the supporting role public libraries

play as educational institutions and in the education sector broadly. Setting aside numerous references

to ministries of education responsible for administering public library service, in several provinces the

belief in the role of public libraries in learning, and in education, both in the abstract sense and as

partner organizations in the formal K-12 elementary education system was distinct. An MB politician

asked “whether there is any dovetailing, whether there is any coordination or complimentary action”

with libraries in the “educational system” particularly in rural areas. Notable by its infrequent reference

in the same contexts, however, was the word literacy. Instead, the word learning was more common to

refer to the educational mandate of public libraries. An ON legislator elaborated, “but for many people

to learn a new language, to learn English or French, to learn about a great many things, the library is an

important place” (ON). The recognition that “libraries are central to the educational and social

infrastructure” (BC) was suggested in several, though not all, debates.

Two other aspects of library principles were identified as significant though they were

referenced only in their respective individual provincial debates. Confidentiality or the right to privacy of

16

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

personal information was referenced in one provincial debate (ON). The practice of protecting patron

circulation records was raised by several Ontario municipal libraries whose submissions were read into

that debate record. Legislators noted the new potential for this “especially with the move to

computerized technological bases.” While sharing of resources was widely acknowledged as a common

library service, only in SK was the idea of co-operation introduced as a fundamental library principle. At

the same time as a revised public library statute was being proposed and debated in SK, a brand new

bill, The Libraries Co-operation Act (1996), a complimentary statute enacting a multi-type library lending

network and organizational infrastructure, was also being proposed for passage into law. The Minister

responsible for both bills argued, “No other agency has a mandate to encourage greater cooperation

and resource sharing among libraries.” While this statute is beyond the scope of the current study, it is

important to note its immediate relationship to the province’s revised Public Libraries Act (1996) from

the same period.

Predictably, the broad analytical concepts of library services and library organization were

prevalent across all debates. These concepts refer to the discrete and often practical concerns of

administering various types of public libraries (e.g., municipal, regional, local, branch, association, etc.)

or of delivering some aspect of what would be considered typical public library services (e.g., collecting

and lending materials, buildings, access to electronic information, etc.). As previously noted, free library

service was referenced in several debates (AB, BC, ON, SK). Equitable or “equal and fair access” (BC) was

a concern in several jurisdictions; as was the related aspect of equal or at least equitable library services

across rural and urban municipalities (AB, BC, MB, ON, SK). Historically, all provinces and territories have

had varying proportions of rural to urban residents and along this census distribution, equity of access as

realized through level of library service has remained a recurring point of political debate. In each

debate analyzed, this tension had a slightly different entry point and focus for concern. These concerns

took various forms of expression such as the issue of “connecting [technologies] to isolated

communities” (AB), or the pervasive spectre of small town library closures due to decreasing provincial

grants, or the need for greater “centralized” regions to leverage services to smaller libraries and their

communities (ON), or the large disparities in service levels between larger urban and smaller rural

communities (MB), or finally, the need to not “discriminate against rural areas” and their library

services, because of more expensive telecommunications (SK).

Although all aspects noted in Table 3 can be observed across these debates, the concepts of

definition, leadership, and First Nations and Métis peoples, may be less obvious and therefore warrant

more detail. Questions raised in AB, BC, and SK regarding indigenous peoples related to ensuring

17

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

540

541

542

543

processes for library systems to enter into agreements with bands for the provision of library services. In

the case of BC, the question also arose regarding how non-indigenous people who lived on reserve lands

could access library services. Alberta legislators differentiated Métis peoples from First Nations peoples,

though similar questions about how each group, was recognized with appropriate provisions for service

agreements to be struck if desired. Questions about ensuring provincial and other library leaders were

“qualified” librarians arose in all but one provincial debate (MB). Legislators were concerned that “at

least a base accreditation” (BC) be explicitly defined. In trying to avoid a further amendment, an NS

politician speculates, “Perhaps it goes with the term Provincial Librarian, that carries with it the clear

implication that the holder of the office is a librarian.”

Not only did the BC legislators call for a clear definition of librarian to satisfy their requirement

for having that accredited provincial leader, but the same speaker initiated an extensive debate about

the necessity of the statute clearly defining the term library:

We're living in an age of information; it has almost become trite to say that. Libraries are the

repositories and disseminators of information in so many of the communities of British Columbia,

small or large. Public libraries are crucial resources, and increasingly so, as we head into an age

dominated by technology and the dissemination of information through technological means --

through computers, computer networks, etc. In this statute we have no definition of a library --

which is interesting. I'm not sure if that's an oversight or if it's deliberate. But the concept of a library

is being redefined in terms of a community resource, not just by young people but by library users of

all ages.

Not all legislators, however, shared that view: “To define it may reduce the flexibility that allows it to

react to the needs of a community. I would suggest that a definition may be a negative rather than a

positive…. If we define it, do we limit those opportunities?” Another BC politician saw the virtue of

having a public library clearly defined in the act to eliminate any potential public confusion or

misperceptions whereby tax-payers think they are funding entities that behave more like “public video

stores” than public libraries. In the final text of the BC statute, as it was passed, “public libraries” were

formally defined as “libraries established under this Act.” This example and the discussion of definition

illustrate the importance and relevance these structured statutory elements may have as interpretive

mechanisms within public library statutory interpretation.

Finally, autonomy as a distinct fundamental principle was a topic in several debates (BC, MB, NS,

ON).2 Legislators argued for local control and authority from one of two governance perspectives: either

from the perspective of the local library board or from the perspective of the local municipality. The

18

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556557558559560561562563564565

566

567

568

569

570

571

572

573

574

575

576

lengthiest debate arose in Ontario: “The first principle of the bill is authority versus autonomy. Are the

library boards going to be autonomous bodies, as they have been in the past 100 years in this province,

or are they going to be merely advisory bodies to municipal councils?” How far municipal councils’

approvals of financial estimates from library boards extended, was commented on by several speakers.

For example,

The municipal council, while it has a legitimate interest in certain financial questions, is

not a substitute for a library board and the existence of a library board as a separate body

responsible for determining services, and particularly determining materials ….

A BC legislator noted, “The important thing here is that municipal library boards need a legal status that

is consistent with their role as autonomous bodies.” Without explicitly making reference to “autonomy”

NS legislators argued against the “elimination of the withdrawal clause” which would give municipalities

the right to withdraw from their agreements with their local or regional library boards.

Several ON legislators also expressed their concerns about protecting local library board

autonomy when they debated the usage of “shall” versus “may” in certain provisions. The provision

entitled “Payments to boards” respecting whether the Minister shall or may “make a grant to every

board for library purposes” was the subject of repeated debate. The member sponsoring the proposed

bill acknowledged this overwhelming criticism of the proposed draft and within the debate indicated

their willingness to revise the language, and adopted the language of the imperative shall. Although

beyond the scope of this analysis, the theme of library autonomy returned to the Ontario legislature, in

sustained debate and public outcry, during 1996-1997 when the province introduced Bill 109 Local

Control of Public Libraries Act, proposing the elimination of provincial funding and giving authority for

library service entirely to local municipalities. The bill was eventually withdrawn.

Discussion

This analysis is by no means conclusive; by design, it invites multiple interpretations. It can, however,

serve as an LIS researchers’ punctuation mark. In time it will also become an historical interpretation as

jurisdictions continue to review and revise their library statutes. This discussion examines how themes

raised in this study constitute the foundation of the legally constituted public library in Canada and

further the work of library practitioners and researchers in the practice of public library. For a variety of

reasons library statutes often remain invisible. They are taken for granted in ways that unduly constrain

their role and their capacity for action. This analysis technically and interpretively unpacks the textual,

discursive “infrastructure” of Canadian public library statutes, making them visible in several new ways.

19

577

578

579

580

581

582583584

585586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

In everyday library work that includes library advocacy, where communities, politicians, and

practitioners circulate, statutes are often treated as background documents, passive objects of the

status quo, referenced and perhaps briefly explained on a provincial or territorial web page. Technically,

statutes answer what and how questions: What is a public library? How do libraries organize themselves

and operate within their jurisdictions, in this case, in Canadian provinces, and territories (Catlin, 1994)?

Importantly, however, as illustrated by this study, statutes can also explicitly and implicitly answer a

foundational why question: Why do public libraries exist?

In times of crisis and political challenge, such as recently occurred in Saskatchewan and

Newfoundland, all of these questions and their responses often come under renewed scrutiny and

debate. One illustration of how library statutes can wield power to influence public library services has

been made visible in the Saskatchewan crisis specifically. As a condition for restoring the funding for one

year, Saskatchewan’s Minister of Education called for a “system-wide [legislative] review” explaining,

"the legislation hasn't been reviewed—I don't know when the legislation has been looked at, so we've

indicated we're willing to listen to the concerns they have and do some consultation with them”

(Langenegger 2017). In their followup brief to the Minister, the Saskatchewan Library Trustees’

Association (SLTA) acknowledged the Government’s plan to review The Public Libraries Act, and asked,

as critical stakeholders, to take an “active role in the review process” (SLTA 2017). In this library ‘crisis’,

then, the exemplary Saskatchewan public library statute continues to be a critical boundary object

mediating public library services in that jurisdiction. The Act was both a focus of attention at the initial

public protest, and significantly it has also become a more central outcome of the same crisis.

As conventional and rule-based as the practice of statutory drafting and interpretation is,

Driedger’s principle and the socio-constructivist, practice-based approach taken in this study, equally

support a requirement to, however broadly, recognize that these geo-political contexts are vastly

different and can be compared as in this study, only in limited ways. Sullivan (2007) acknowledges, and

two of the interview participants confirmed, that local political and bureaucratic norms, practices and

cultures also influence the inclusions, exclusions, level of detail, language employed, particular

provisions, etc., that appear in these final texts. Moreover the six legislative debates also point to the

importance and relevance of local political and jurisdictional contexts. A well-established bureaucrat’s

point of view, and confirmed by one of the participants interviewed for this study, argues that legislation

can sometimes be “strengthened by its omissions” (Catling 1994, 52).

To understand why each statute appears as it does would require, among other data, multiple

in-depth interviews with the various past and present-day actors and in-depth knowledge of the

20

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633

634

635

636

637

638

639

640

641

political, social, and economic contexts of each jurisdiction. In the case of SK, the researcher was able to

interview a primary author of the SK text, who was then and remains a legal statutes and library

governance expert. This participant explained the process,

The things you want to put into the legislation are only the fundamental things that will protect the

issues that are most important. You don’t want this to be easy to change. It’s only when you use the

legislation that you discover its deficiencies. If the bureaucrats are sitting in their offices, but are not

actually engaged in the issues, they’re not going to see the problems and will have no motivation to

propose revisions that improve the existing statute. (INT2)

This analysis exposes many of the unique dimensions of public libraries as institutional entities,

with corresponding principles and values that together, minimally at least, distinguish a public library

from, for example, a real or virtual bookstore or other media enterprise, a social networking website, a

delivery service, or even a Google search box. However simply a library may be defined by statute and

regulation, references to services, to purpose statements and other provisions highlighted, also suggest

the breadth and scope of contemporary public library service, that exceed a single borrower or a single

politician’s average experience and knowledge. Public libraries are increasingly complex networks of

action informed by common values and principles, and underwritten by technical, cultural and

informational infrastructures and networks as detailed and then summarized by Table 3. The legislative

debates of these political actors can add important nuance and technical context to an understanding of

the meaning and ongoing public library action realized in their statutes.

Further questions are invited related to how public library statutes negotiate meaning and

action as critical boundary objects, particularly as public libraries evolve in this fast-paced, contemporary

knowledge and information society. While many of these jurisdictions post policies on service-related

issues for example, meeting room rentals, data privacy, trans-border data, or internet use (e.g., NB), the

statutes and regulations themselves are, in some cases silent altogether, or in others, making briefest

mention. As public library services and their roles in their communities evolve and expand, and as calls

for accountability and value increase, should statutes have more explicit language reflecting their core

values, principles and related services, in particular, digital and online services? In hypothetical

challenges to public library funding, where priorities or decisions made need to be clearly

communicated, how might current or revised statutes and regulations enable or constrain these public

and political conversations?

As presented, the Saskatchewan statute and regulations are clearly exceptional. SK’s is the only

statute that defines and details a comprehensive provincial public library system including its essential

21

642

643

644

645646647648649650

651

652

653

654

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

664

665

666

667

668

669

670

671

672

673

674

constituent services the majority of which are services requiring inter-library co-operation, not services

stand-alone public libraries can provide – interlibrary loans, reciprocal borrowing, and union catalogue.

Although many provincial and territorial library jurisdictions provide similar services, they are not

written into their legislation and therefore they will never have the same force; for SK residents, these

services cannot be as readily dismantled as could happen in other jurisdictions. This evidence points to a

policy dilemma for future provincial and territorial library administrators and legal consultants.

In today’s political and public spheres, library leaders regularly have to explain or justify, why

and how their public libraries are “more than just books” (Donachie 2014; Kielburger and Kielburger

2016). This phrase so often invoked by media and library advocates, has become the de facto definition

of the public library idea. As an everyday definition of such a complex modern institution, however, it is

surely insufficient. Moreover, the library statutes underwriting these libraries and library systems, as a

whole, also do not obviously and explicitly recognize that complexity and diversity. Nor do these

statutes clearly outline the public policy spaces, evidenced for example, in the role of the library’s public

internet access, or the creative and entrepreneurial opportunities made available by maker-spaces, that

they increasingly inhabit. Substantially revising public library statutes to more forcefully enshrine public

library principles and core services can be a lengthy and politically volatile process, and one that may not

meet an acceptable risk analysis threshold among many library administrators and their governments.

As the Saskatchewan and Newfoundland stories suggest, library legislation can become a powerful

boundary object, actively influencing public debates, and critical to negotiating the shared library

principles, values and services that connect the library’s past, present and future identities with its

citizens and communities.

22

675

676

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

References

Age, Lars-Johan. 2011. “Grounded Theory Methodology: Positivism, Hermeneutics, And Pragmatism.” The Qualitative Report 16 (6): 1599-1615.

Bowen, Glenn A. 2006. “Grounded Theory And Sensitizing Concepts.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (3): 12-23.

Brice, Lorne. (2010). Places to Grow: Public Libraries and Communities in Ontario, 1930-2000. Guelph ON: Lorne Bruce.

Buschman, John 2003. Dismantling The Public Sphere: Situating and Sustaining Librarianship in the Age of the New Public Philosophy. Libraries Unlimited.

Buschman, John 2018. “On Democracy and Libraries.” Library Quarterly 88 (1): 23-40.

Catlin, I. 1994. “Redefining The Role of The Public Library in Legislation.” The Australian Library Journal 43 (1): 49-55.

Cavanagh, M. 2015. “Structuring An Action Net of Public Library Membership.” Library Quarterly 85(4): 406-426.

Donachie, Mike. December 9, 2014. “More Than Just Books: Why Libraries Matter In Canada.” Toronto MetroNews, http://www.metronews.ca/views/2014/12/09/more-than-just-books-why-libraries-matter-in-canada.html

Ensing, Chris. May 10, 2016. “Fogo Islanders Pack Library In Protest of Government Cuts.” CBC News: Newfoundland and Labrador. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/fogo-island-library-protest-1.3574505

Gardner, Frank M. 1971. Public Library Legislation: A Comparative Study. Paris: UNESCO.

Glaser, B.G. and Strauss A.L. 1967. The Discovery Of Grounded Theory: Strategies For Qualitative Research. New Brunswick NJ: Aldine Transaction.

Government of Alberta. 1998. 24th Legislature, 2nd Session 1998-1999. Libraries Amendment Act 1998 (Bill 4).

Government of British Columbia. 1994. 35th Leg, 3rd Sess, Library Act.

Government of Manitoba. 1980. 31st Leg, 4th Sess, An Act to Amend the Public Libraries Act (Bill 33).

Government of Nova Scotia. 1990. 55th Parl, 2nd Sess, Libraries Act (Bill 28).

Government of Ontario. 1984. 32nd Parl, 4th Sess, Public Libraries Act (Bill 93).

Government of Saskatchewan. 1996. 23rd Leg, 1st Sess, Public Libraries Act, 1996 (Bill no. 28).

23

696697698699700701702703704705706707708709710711712713714715716717718719720721722723724725726727728729730731732733734735736737738739740741742743

Helling, J. 2012. Public Libraries And Their National Policies International Case Studies (Chandos information professional series). Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

Huizing, A. and Cavanagh, M. (2011). "Planting Contemporary Practice Theory in The Garden Of Information Science" Information Research, 16(4) paper 497. [Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/16-4/paper497.html]

Huvila, Islo, Anderson, Jansen, Theresa D., Hourihan, Eva, McKenzie, Pam, and Worrall, Adam. 2017. “Boundary Objects in Information Science.” Journal of the Association For Information Science and Technology 68(8): 1807-1822.

Huysmans, F., and Oomes, M. 2013. Measuring The Public Library’s Societal Value: A Methodological Research Program. IFLA Journal 39 (2):168-177.

Jaeger, Paul T., Gorham, Ursula, Bertot, John Carlo, and Sarin, Lindsay C. 2014. Public Libraries, Public Policies, and Political Processes : Serving And Transforming Communities In Times Of Economic And Political Constraint. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Jaeger, Paul T., Bertot, John Carlo and Gorham, Ursula. 2011. “Wake Up The Nation: Public Libraries, Policy Making, And Political Discourse.” The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 83 (1): 61-72.

Kielburger, Craig and Kielburger, Marc. May 27, 2016. “More Than Just Books, Libraries Act As Equalizers.” London Free Press, http://www.thelondoner.ca/2016/05/27/more-than-just-books-libraries-act-as-equalizers

Langenegger, Stefani. April 24, 2017. “’We made a mistake’: Sask. Government turns back page on library cuts.” CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-libraries-budget-reversal-1.4082965

Maher, John H. August, 1967. Library Service in Saskatchewan : The Report of The Library Inquiry Committee (a survey with recommendations).

O’Connor, Kevin. March 22, 2017. “Province Cuts Money For Libraries.” CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/province-cuts-money-for-libraries-1.4035529

Oxford University Press n.d. “Library.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/view/Entry/107923?rskey=bDkfe6&result=1#eid

Oxford University Press n.d. “Public Library.” Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/view/Entry/154052?redirectedFrom=public+library#eid118243074

Peet, Lisa. June 2, 2016. “Canadian Libraries Help Fort McMurray Fire Evacuees.” Library Journal. https://lj.libraryjournal.com/2016/06/academic-libraries/canadian-libraries-help-fort-mcmurray-fire-evacuees/

24

744745746747748749750751752753754755756757758759760761762763764765766767768769770771772773774775776777778779780781782783784785786787788789790791

Roberts, Terry and Ensing, Chris. June 30, 2016. “Library Closures Suspended Until Review Completed.” CBC News, http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/nl-public-libraries-update-1.3659833

Saskatchewan Library Trustees’ Association. November 17, 2017. “Discussion Points – Saskatchewan Libraries” Presented to Minister Bronwyn Eyre. http://slta.ca/+pub/document/briefs/Presentation1.pdf

Savolainen, R. 2008. Everyday Information Practices : A Social Phenomenological Perspective. Lanham, Md.: Scarecrow Press.

Schrader Alvin and Brundin, Michael R. 2012. National Statistical Profile of Canadian Libraries, Ottawa: Canadian Library Association. https://librarianship.ca/news/national-profile/

Star, Susan Leigh. 2010. “This Is Not A Boundary Object: Reflections On The Origin Of A Concept.” Science Technology Human Values 35 (5): 601-617.

Star, Susan Leigh and Griesemer, James R. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’, and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals on Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology.” Social Studies of Science 19:387-420.

Stenstrom, C. and Haycock, K. 2014. “Influence and Increased Funding in Canadian Public Libraries: The Case of Alberta in Fiscal Year 2009-10.” Library Quarterly 84(1): 49-68.

Stevenson, S. 2016. “Immaterial Labour, Public Librarians, And Third-Generation Public Libraries.” New Library World, 117(3/4): 186-200.

Stevenson, S. (2011). “New Labour in Libraries: The Post-Fordist Public Library.” Journal of Documentation 67(5): 773-790. Doi: 10.1108/00220411111164664

Sullivan, Ruth. 2007. Statutory Interpretation, 2nd ed. Toronto: Irwin Law.

Wilson, Virginia. 2008. “Public Libraries In Canada: An Overview.” Library Management 29 (6/7): 556-570.

25

792793794795796797798799800801802803804805806807808809810811812813814815816817818819820821822823824825826

26

827828

829

Table 1 – Overview of public library legislation in Canada (2017)

Province or Territory1 AB BC MB NB NL NT NS NU ON PE QC SK YK

Year of current consolidation2 2000 1996 1987 2011 1993 2009 1989 2010 1990 1992 1994 1996 2002

Short title Libraries Act

Library Act

The Public

Libraries Act

NB Public Libraries

Act

Public Libraries

Act

Public Library

Act

Libraries Act Library Act

Public Libraries

Act

Public Libraries

Act

Loi sur le Ministère de la Culture et des

Communications

Public Libraries

Act

Public Library

Act

Statute citation

RSA 2000c. L-11

RSBC 1996c. 264

CCSMc. P220

RSM1987

c. P220

RSNB 2011c.194

RSNL 1990

C. P-40

SNWT2009c.7

RSNS1989c.254

RSNWT1998 C.L-7

Amended byS.Nu.2010, c.14, s.11

RSO 1990c.P.44

RSPEI 1988c.P-31.1 RSQ, c M-17.1

SS 1996c. P-39.2

SNWT 2009 c.7

No. of clauses (current statute) 42 62 42 13 40 8 16 6 42 13 12 84 9

Separate regulations

Statute purpose statement

Year bill passed in legislature 1998 1994 1987 1997 1993 2009 1990 2010 1984 1992 1994 1996 2009

Legislative debate retrieved

No. of words in legislative debate (nearest 100)

6,100 13,600 3,000 8,600 26,200 8,900

1 Provincial and territorial two letter abbreviations are used throughout the paper following Canada Post standard https://www.canadapost.ca/tools/pg/manual/PGaddress-e.asp?ecid=murl10006450 2 Unless otherwise noted, all statutes examined for this study were sourced in the CanLii database and then validated on each provincial or territorial government department’s web page.

27

830831

832833

Table 2 – Public library statute purpose provisions

Jurisdiction Purpose provisions

British Columbia Purposes of this Act

2 The purposes of this Act are

(a) to encourage the extension and use of public library service throughout British

Columbia,

(b) to enable the delivery of public library service in British Columbia by

(i) providing for the establishment and operation of municipal libraries, regional

library districts and library federations, and

(ii) allowing existing public library associations and integrated public library systems

to continue to operate, and

(c) to support improvements in public library service.

Nova Scotia Purpose of Act

1A The purpose of this Act is to

(a) have the Provincial Library co-ordinate the activities of provincially funded libraries;

(b) establish and provide for the orderly operation of regional public libraries; and

(c) provide support services to libraries in the Province.

1990, c. 32, s. 1.

Saskatchewan Purposes

3(1) The purposes of this Act are:

(a) to establish a structure for the provincial public library system;

(b) to ensure equitable access to basic library services by all residents of Saskatchewan;

and

(c) to recognize that the following are fundamental components of the provincial public

library system:

(i) the Saskatchewan union catalogue composed of the records of public, academic,

special and school libraries, regardless of the format in which those records are

stored or accessed;

(ii) interlibrary loans;

(iii) reciprocal borrowing;

(iv) autonomous library boards.

(2) The purposes of the provincial public library system are:

(a) to facilitate equitable access to basic library services by all residents of Saskatchewan;

28

834

835

and

(b) to ensure the existence and availability of:

(i) the Saskatchewan union catalogue composed of the records of public, academic,

special and school libraries, regardless of the format in which those records are

stored or accessed;

(ii) interlibrary loans;

(iii) reciprocal borrowing;

(iv) autonomous library boards.

1996, c.P-39.2, s.3.

29

836

837

Table 3 - Primary emergent concepts and related aspects in legislative debates

Purpose of bill The future Libraryprinciples

Library services

Libraryorganization *Autonomy

ConsistencyFlexibilityFutureHousekeepingProtect

ComplexConnectionInformation highwayMaterialsModernizingResource sharingTechnology

Autonomy*ConfidentialityCooperationEquitableFreeLearning

AccessBuildingsEquitableFree - FeeMaterialsRural – Urban

BoardConsultationDefinitionDutiesFirst Nations & Métis peoplesFrameworkFundingLibrarianPlan

AuthorityBoardCentralLocalMunicipalityProvinceRegionShall vs. May

30

838