By this point in the academic term, most students will have reviewed their course syllabi and either purchased, rented or pirated physical or digital copies of their textbooks. In doing so, they reprise their roles as the final actors in a larger system of publisher licenses, library limitations and institutional programs that dictate what materials will — or will not — be accessed and taught.
Canadian universities are going through a transitional period with how students access their textbooks. Some universities continue to let students choose between renting and buying digital or print copies of their textbooks through campus bookstores or third-party vendors — with some courses offering free open educational resources (OER). Other universities have begun to implement Digital Textbook Access (DTA) programs by billing digital materials through students’ tuitions or on a course-by-course basis, requiring students to pay for course access from specific digital textbook vendors — unless they choose to opt-out.
The DTA programs go by various names — Inclusive Access, Equitable Access, Day1Digital, eTexts and more. Universities highlight several reasons for adopting digital access programs. York University explains that their Day1Digital program provides “lowest price solutions,” which give students easy access to course materials from the first day of class. Wilfrid Laurier University reaffirms this message, saying DTA programs “reduce the overall cost of course materials” and “supports [students’] academic achievements” by ensuring students have the required materials from the first day, reducing the risk of some falling behind because they delayed purchasing.
The Canadian Association of Research Libraries (CARL) are not convinced, as they expressed in their 2024 statement. They raised concerns regarding the constrained timeline to opt-out of these programs, the restricted freedom to choose cheaper, alternative options, the loss of ownership — most DTA models only offer temporary access to course materials — and the possible data breaches due to students’ personal information being shared with third party vendors.
CARL also discusses the implications DTA programs have on academic freedom as faculty are limited “to course materials produced by select, predetermined publishers.” This limitation could also lead to under-representation for Canadian content since American publishing tends to dominate the space.
The University of Alberta Students’ Union echoed some of these concerns, saying the proposed Academic Materials Program (AMP) was not always the cheapest option and due to the flat fee imposed at the beginning of the semester — which you can opt-out within a limited period of time — students may pay more than if they had sought alternatives.
Brock University underwent conversations regarding the implementation of campus wide automatic billing programs but ultimately decided against it. The Vice Provost of Brock, Rajiv Jhangiani, said “we see the challenges, and we’re not interested in going down that route.” Rather, in 2023 Brock launched an OER grant program with support from the Brock University Students’ Union to encourage instructors to adopt free alternatives.
Due to publisher licensing practices, the program continues to face challenges. Brock University’s Library has said “most of the major textbook publishers — Pearson, Cengage, Houghton, McGraw Hill, Oxford University Press Canada Textbooks, Elsevier Imprints, Thieme — do not sell e-textbooks to libraries,” preventing the library from offering students “alternative access to the textbook contents.” By refusing to sell to libraries, these publishing companies build their profit models around selling directly to students, legally obstructing libraries from proving students with free digital access.
The future of textbook access at Canadian universities remains unsettled. DTA programs offer immediate availability and the perception of reduced costs, yet they also risk limiting student choice, undermining academic freedom and reinforcing reliance on large publishing companies. OER grants and library-led alternatives highlight that there are viable and more equitable pathways, yet they remain limited by the realities of corporate licensing models and institutional constraint.
As universities weigh convenience and cost-saving measures against long-term questions of access, ownership and academic autonomy, the outcome will shape not only how students learn but who controls the knowledge they consume. Behind every access code or library link lies a larger story about affordability, equity, ownership and digital rights.