Deber de cuidado

Beyea and Haworth, Brief to the Consultative Group, pp. 4-6.

R. James, City Archivist, Toronto, ‘Brief on Archives in Canada,’ 13 June 1978, Regehr Papers, p.

1.

Canada Council, Report of the First Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives.

H.A. Taylor, Provincial Archivist, Provincial Archives o f Nova Scotia, Brief to the Consultative Group, 28 April 1978, Regehr Papers, pp. 273-74.

past.’^^ Mathieu emphasised this historical orientation in archival work, defining ‘archivistics’ as:

a science wherein the principles and methods are directed towards protecting (acquiring), conserving, classifying, inventorying and making accessible non-published (or unique) documents which can be said to shed light on the past/^

Seeking a Balance

After considering these differing points o f view, the Consultative Group sought a balanced definition o f archives that accommodated both the administrative and historical ideals. It defended the idea that a total archives repository acquired ‘all material, i.e. o f all media and all sources, which pertained to its specific purpose.^ However, ‘total archives’ was not acceptable if it meant that a repository defined its mandate in non­ specific terms — or did not define a mandate at all — and then sought and acquired material o f all media fi*om all sources. To avoid this unplanned acquisition and consequent rivalry, institutions needed precise and well-defined policies.

The Consultative Group opted for a broad vision o f archival work. Archival materials were defined as ‘unpublished or unique materials o f a documentary nature (including film, tape and photograph) which may shed light on the past.’ Archival records did not exist solely for academic research. But neither did they exist solely for institutional use. Jenkinson’s definition was too restrictive. Archival records served a wide range o f people, mostly through intermediaries such as historians, biographers, political scientists, or journalists. Administrative efficiency was not the only reason for maintaining an archival programme.^^

The Group defined archival repositories in relation to their key functions: appraising, acquiring, and selecting records; conserving, arranging, and describing them;

19 20

Canada Council, Report o f the Second Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Report o f the Third Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives in Canada, 14 April 1978. Copy obtained privately.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council o f Canada, Report o f the Fifth Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, 26 October 1978, pp. 3-5. Copy obtained privately. Consultative Group, Canadian Archives, pp. 13-17.

and making them accessible. It avoided designating a particular type o f repository as the ‘only true archives.’ Instead, it encouraged cooperation among various institutions, all o f whom needed to understand a common archival process and to agree on basic archival principles.^^

In spite o f its claim that archival programmes served more than institutional necessity, the Group was strongly in favour o f records management. It was the key to any ‘systematic preservation’ o f the nation’s records. By establishing and maintaining records management programmes, archivists could maintain the link between historical and current records. Because many records had no long-term value, and only a small number were o f enduring significance, the archivist had to intervene in the records management process to ensure that appropriate appraisal decisions were made. By participating in records management, archivists would realise ‘the full potential o f the archival process: o f preserving the recorded social memory.

The Decentralisation o f Archivai Control

A second issue the Consultative Group examined was the rise in regional archival repositories. The Group saw a danger in the proliferation o f institutions across the country. It recognised that ‘few archives have been established in response to a clear plan.’ Most, large and small, had been established through the efforts o f ‘a dedicated enthusiast.’ The Group’s survey o f archives had shown that the number o f archival institutions in the country had grown remarkably, from 17 in 1900 to nearly 200 by 1978, and increase o f over 1000 per cent.^^ There was no denying the reality o f regional identities in the wake o f this plethora o f community, regional, and institutional repositories. The Group felt that these smaller archives, many funded in an ad hoc fashion, were particularly susceptible to cuts and closure.^"^

Ibid., p. 18

Ibid., pp. 86-87, 105. Ibid., pp. 29, 37.

Further, these institutions lacked leadership or guidance. Most had been set up ‘in the absence o f a school o f archival science ... o f basic manuals or texts ... o f any program o f federal or provincial assistance, or even o f tax concessions.’^^ Local communities saw a need for a local archival institution, and to establish one, they drew on funds from a variety o f sources. But without archival standards or institutional coordination there could be no cooperative planning among these wide-ranging repositories. Efforts were duplicated, resources wasted, and records endangered.^^ The concern for decentralised development was echoed by the historians on the Consultative Group who argued that funds were better spent ensuring research materials were kept in one central location.

Some archivists suggested to the Consultative Group that the proliferation o f archives came out o f the burgeoning heritage movement. It was a testimony to a ‘sincere and growing desire o f Canadians to preserve the fast fading image o f their heritage. This heritage impulse had to be accepted as reality, even though it meant the development o f local archives and the possibility that archival material might be lost or cared for in less than ideal circumstances.^* The Group agreed that this principle o f ‘territoriality’ had to be respected. Records should be kept close to the area o f creation: ‘it is to this area that they rightfully belong, and to these people that they should be most readily available.’^^ Taylor urged archivists to support the ‘necessary development o f local archives,’ lamenting the centralisation o f the 1960s and 1970s.^® He proposed that professional archivists work together to plan a national strategy for the preservation o f documentary materials. The Public Archives could then provide grants to assist with preservation o f records, limiting its own acquisition to the records o f organisations or people whose activities ‘transcend provinces and regions.

25 26 27 28 29 30

Consultative Group, Canadian Archives, p. 59.

Canada Council, Report o f the First Meeting of the Consultative Group on Archives, pp. 6-7. Consultative Group, Canadian Archives, p. 59.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council o f Canada, Report o f the Open Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives in Canada, 30 May 1978, p. 4. Copy obtained privately.

Canada Council, Report o f the First Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives, p. 10. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council o f Canada, Report o f the Open Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives, p. 4.

The Group decried the trend o f thematic archives, arguing that such institutions took records out o f their proper context and placed them in an artificial environment/^ The problem with thematic or media-based archives, argued the Group, was that they led archivists to ignore the principles o f respect des fonds, by not retaining records together as a unit o f one creating agency. Further, a thematic orientation was difficult, if not impossible, to link with a functioning records management programme.^^

Thus the Consultative Group soundly rejected the Symons proposal that universities serve as the nation’s primary archival institutions. The risk was too great that a subject-oriented emphasis would overshadow legitimate archival principles. While two members o f the Group, Ian Wilson and Marcel Caya, both university archivists, did feel that university archives had a ‘leadership role to play,’ the general consensus was that university repositories appeared to be haphazard and disorganised. They were unable to care for their own records, much less acquire other materials.^"^ As Stan Hanson at the University o f Saskatchewan Archives argued, the Symons Commission had ignored the existence and value o f local archives. These institutions, he felt, should not be dismissed as ‘unimportant, non-viable, mismanaged and ill-equipped archival aberrations.’ Rather, it was university archives that were poorly managed. ‘Few touts,’ he claimed, ‘would lay money on the ability o f Canadian universities to play so dominant a role in the Canadian archival programme.

Funding fo r Archives

Examining the issue o f funding, the Consultative Group acknowledged that the money available for archival work was ‘insignificant by any s t a n d a r d . W h i l e the National Museums programme allocated $9 million to museums across the country, there

32

35 36

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Report o f the Third Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives, pp. 9-10.

Murdoch, ‘Ontario Archives Brief,’ p. 4.

Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council o f Canada, Report o f the Fifth Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, pp. 5-6. See also, Canada Council, Report o f the Second Meeting o f the Consultative Group on Archives, pp. 12-13.

S.D. Hanson, Brief to the Consultative Group, June 1978, Regehr Papers.