The secret working group includes virtually all the major telecom and cable companies, whose representatives have been granted Government of Canada Secret level security clearance and signed non-disclosure agreements. The group is led by Bell Canada on the industry side and Public Safety for the government.

The inaugural meeting, held just three weeks before Bill C-30 was introduced, included invitations to eleven companies (Bell Canada, Cogeco, Eagle, MTS Allstream, Quebecor, Research In Motion, Rogers, Sasktel, Telus, Vidéotron, and Wind Mobile) along with two industry associations (the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association and the Canadian Network Operators Consortium).

The secret working group is designed to create an open channel for discussion between telecom providers and government. As the uproar over Bill C-30 was generating front-page news across the country, Bell reached out to government to indicate that "it was working its way through C-30 with great interest" and expressed desire for a meeting to discuss disclosure of subscriber information. A few weeks later, it sent another request seeking details on equipment obligations to assist in its costing exercises.

Months before the January 2012 meeting, officials worked with the telecom companies to identify many concerns and provide guidance on the government's intent on Internet surveillance regulations, information that has never been publicly released.

For example, a December 2011 draft list of lawful access issues features questions about surveillance of social networks, cloud computing facilities, and Wi-Fi networks. The telecom companies raise many questions about compensation, such as "a formula for adequate compensation" for the disclosure of subscriber information as well as payment for testing surveillance capabilities and providing surveillance assistance.

At a September 2011 meeting that included Bell Canada, Cogeco, RIM, Telus, Rogers, Microsoft, and the Information Technology Association of Canada, government officials provided a lawful access regulations policy document that offered guidance on plans for extensive regulations that will ultimately accompany the Internet surveillance legislation.  

The 17-page document indicates that providers will be required to disclose certain subscriber information without a warrant within 48 hours and within 30 minutes in exceptional circumstances. Interceptions of communications may also need to be established within 30 minutes of a request with capabilities that include simultaneous interceptions for five law enforcement agencies.

The close cooperation between the government and telecom providers has created a two-tier approach to Internet surveillance policy, granting privileged access and information for telecom providers. Meanwhile, privacy and civil society groups, opposition MPs, and millions of interested Canadians are kept in the dark about the full extent of the government's plans. The public has already indicated its opposition to the bill. The secrecy and backroom industry talks associated with Bill C-30 provides yet another reason to hit the reset button.

For example, David Willetts, the United Kingdom Minister of State for Universities and Science, left no doubt about his government’s view on open access to publicly funded research in a remarkable speech to the Publishers Association annual general meeting in London earlier this month. Willetts told the industry that the UK government "is committed to the principle of public access to publicly-funded research results" and that it "believes that published research material which has been publicly financed should be publicly accessible - and that principle goes well beyond the academic community."

As Willetts was telling publishers that trying "to preserve the old model is the wrong battle to fight", Harvard and MIT were announcing an ambitious partnership to bring free or low cost Internet-based classes to thousands of students. The "edX" initiative starts with US$60 million in funding from the two universities with five courses planned for the fall. It joins similar offerings from Stanford (which offered 13 courses online this year) as well as Princeton, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania.

While the U.S. online teaching initiatives come out of the university system, last year the U.S. government injected hundreds of millions of dollars into open course materials for colleges. Led by the Departments of Labor and Education, the $2 billion program offers $500 million per year for the development of openly licensed materials that must carry the Creative Commons BY licence, which permits their free derivative use for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

With billions of dollars invested in research that is freely available, course materials that can be freely adapted for any purpose, and free online courses from some of the world’s leading institutions, the shape of education is set to change dramatically in the coming years.

Yet there are serious doubts whether Canada is ready for these changes. While countries such as the UK forge ahead with mandatory open access policies, the major Canadian granting institutions dole out hundreds of millions of dollars in grants without strict requirements to ensure that the resulting data and research publications are made openly available to the public that has funded it.

The massive investment in open course materials will likely prove attractive to Canadian schools and students, with the prospect that domestic materials are dropped in favour of more flexible, free alternatives. Several B.C. and Alberta universities are investing in the creation of their own open materials, but more is needed to Canadianize the steady stream of U.S. funded works.

As for online education, there may be the occasional pilot project from Canadian universities, but no one seems ready to confront the emerging reality of competition from top tier schools from around the world offering online courses at low cost to Canadian students. In fact, many schools seem stuck in their traditional model, complete with restrictive licensing agreements that are likely to slow the technology transition. The future of education may be here, but few Canadian universities have woken up to its implications.