La imputación en las diligencias preliminares

The Association o f Canadian Archivists urged the formation o f the proposed National Archival Records Commission (NARC), instead o f the government-run Extension Branch. A national congress on archives was held at Kingston, Ontario, on 3-4 June 1982, and there were attempts to ensure the NARC was discussed.^ However, it was not; archivists at the Kingston session were concerned with offering input to the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, which had recently been struck to consider funding for cultural programmes.^

At this meeting and after, archivists requested the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) to reconsider funding provincial or territorial archival work. SSHRC reiterated its position: archival repositories were not eligible for the funding programmes available.^ The Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee accepted in principle the idea o f a National Archival Records Commission, but it did not take any

8

action.

The state o f Canadian archives then became an agenda item at the Interprovincial Federal Deputies and Ministers Conference, held in 1982.^ The ministers resolved to encourage the evolution o f an archival system, assigning the task to the Dominion- Provincial-Territorial Archivists (DPTA) Committee. The DPTA Committee struck a Subcommittee composed o f Marion Beyea as chair, Lee MacDonald (who replaced Michael Swift from the Public Archives o f Canada), Ian Wilson, Miriam McTeiman, and Peter Bower. Marcel Caya and Robert Morgan participated on behalf o f the professional archival associations.

The Subcommittee prepared a discussion paper on the structure o f an archival system. This paper served as the basis for several more reports, including one in 1984 on

9 10

T. Cook, ‘Editorial,’ Archivaria 17 (Winter 1983-84): 15.

See M. Beyea and M. Caya, eds.. Planning for Canadian Archives: Proceedings o f the First Congress on Archives (Ottawa: Bureau o f Canadian Archivists, 1983).

See ‘International Scene,’ The American Archivist A6, 2 (Spring 1983): 210-11.

Association o f Canadian Archivists, ‘ACA Response to the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee,’ March 1983, Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA), Records, MG 28,1340, NAC, March 1983. See also the published responses in Archivaria 16 (Summer 1983): 95-110. Beyea to Saintonge, 20 May 1983.

See M. Beyea to M. Swift, 1. Wilson, M. McTeiman, and P. Bower, June 1984, M. Beyea, CCA files. See also M. Beyea, open letter, 9 October 1985. Copy obtained privately.

the implementation o f the new system. The core o f this ‘Implementation Guidelines’ document was the now-accepted government stance that any national public programme was a ‘matter o f shared responsibility’ between federal and provincial governments. Any archival system developed had to suit the differing needs o f each province and territory across the country. It was best administered via cooperative provincial or territorial networks.

The Subcommittee recommended the establishment o f an Advisory Council on the Archival System, to advise the Public Archives o f Canada on the development and funding o f archival programmes. These programmes could include interinstitutional activities, professional planning, staff exchanges, and research and development. This council would replace the proposed National Archival Records Commission. Money for the programmes, the Subcommittee suggested, should come from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Secretary o f State’s Canadian Studies Programme.

The Subcommittee’s report was approved by provincial ministers in 1984. Another discussion paper was prepared for review by the DPTA Committee in June 1985.^^ In this discussion paper, the Subcommittee outlined its vision o f the actual mechanisms required to establish and maintain the archival system. The approach was flexible, to accommodate to the needs o f each province or territory and to allow effective participation by both archival institutions and professional associations.

The Subcommittee specifically emphasised the legitimacy o f the total archives concept. It noted that the national, provincial, and territorial archives had developed a

See Dommion-Provincial-Territorial Archivists, ‘Dominion-Provincial-Territorial Archivists’ Conference, The Canadian Archival System, Discussion Paper,’ 12 August 1982, and ‘Implementation Guidelines for the Canadian Archives System, A Report Prepared by the Dommion-Provincial-Territorial Archivists Conference, 20 August 1984.’ Copy obtained privately.

Dominion-Provincial-Territorial Archivists, ‘Implementation Guidelines,’ pp. 7-8.

See Dominion-Provincial-Territorial Archivists, ‘The Canadian Archives System: A Discussion Paper,’ prepared by the Dominion/Provincial/Territorial Archivists’ Conference Sub-Committee on the Archival System, June 1985, and M. Beyea, Chairman, Subcommittee on Canadian Archives System to the Dominion-Provincial-Territorial Archivists, 30 May 1985. Copy obtained privately.

‘dual responsibility’ for the records o f their governments and for the records o f individuals, groups, or businesses within their geopolitical jurisdiction. These ‘broad governmental archival mandates’ were ‘essential,’ But, the Subcommittee argued, local governments and private-sector institutions were increasingly committed to caring for their own records, and their efforts should be encouraged. After all, archives were ‘a fundamental resource for the development o f a well-informed society and for the good conduct o f public and private affairs.’

A coordinated archival system, they felt, should allow for development o f individual public or private sector repositories. It should also ensure public repositories had the right to step in to protect vulnerable records, regardless o f their origins. It should be comprised o f provincial and territorial councils, each reporting to a national advisory council composed o f representatives o f each o f the local groups. The local groups should identify the archival needs in their province or territory, then develop specific programmes to address those needs. Programmes might include advising on standards, providing conservation services, disseminating finding aids, offering workshops, and so on.

The Public Archives o f Canada should continue to fulfil its core archival responsibilities for the records o f the federal government. But it should also serve as the key federal agency coordinating the system o f provincial and territorial councils, supported by an advisory council. On the advice o f this council, the Dominion Archivist should determine the allocation o f resources and services, the development o f programmes, and strategic planning for the archival system. The advisory council should also advise other federal agencies on any issues involving archival management.

Professional archival associations should continue to represent the concerns o f individual archivists. They should also participate as members o f the advisory council in designing the archival system and developing grant or other programmes. They should

Ibid., pp. 2-5. Ibid., p. 4.

also be eligible to receive funding to address archival issues specifically relevant to the profession/^

In its conclusion to this report, the Subcommittee lamented that limited funding and poor planning were placing archival programmes ‘in jeopardy.’ As the number o f repositories increased, action was required to ensure a cooperative system was established on solid principles. The Subcommittee urged the establishment o f provincial and territorial councils as soon as possible. It encouraged the founders to structure their councils ‘as best suits the prevailing stage o f archival development and the archival needs o f its jurisdiction.’ It called on the Dominion Archivist, in consultation with provincial and territorial councils, to establish the national advisory council.

The national council, the Canadian Council o f Archives (CCA), held its inaugural meeting with provincial and territorial council representatives on 7-8 November 1985 at the Public Archives o f Canada in Ottawa. The Council’s budget for its first full year o f operations was $1,433,139.^^

One o f the first tasks o f the CCA was to fund provincial and territorial councils to conduct a survey o f their local needs and priorities. These surveys were carried out between 1985 and 1987; the results were published in 1988. Drawing on the data gathered from 627 archival agencies identified across the country, the CCA’s Planning and Priorities Committee then identified national needs and developed a programme to address them.^^

One o f the components o f the CCA’s programme was to develop a strategy for the coordinated acquisition o f archival records across the country. To develop this strategy, the CCA established an Acquisition Committee in 1989. By establishing this committee, the CCA expressed its belief that a collaborative acquisition programme for archives across Canada was both possible and desirable. The Acquisition Committee would

Ibid., p. 4. Ibid., p. 6.

Canadian Council of Archives, CCA Budget, 1985-1995. Copy obtained privately.

Canadian Council of Archives, Report, Inaugural Meeting, enclosed in J.P. Wallot to M. Beyea, 27 November 1985. Copy obtained privately.

examine mechanisms for the cooperative management o f acquisition; it would examine appraisal requirements for contemporary records; and it would raise awareness among records creators o f the importance o f managing their archival records?^

To achieve these goals, the Acquisition Committee undertook several initiatives. In 1990, it published a brochure outlining Guidelines fo r Developing an Acquisition Policy. In 1992, it conducted a survey o f archives across the country to determine current acquisition practices and trends. Receiving responses from 309 institutions, the Committee determined that the development o f acquisition networks was a high priority for the archival community. It also recognised that archivists needed guidance in the development o f acquisition policies and related documents. Finally, it identified gaps in the documentation held in Canadian archives, notably in the areas o f science and technology, travel and exploration, law and justice, medicine and health, labour, and the military.^^

Following on this survey, the Committee in 1994 published Building a National Acquisition Strategy: Guidelines fo r Acquisition Planning. This publication was premised on the belief that archival repositories, both public and private, had a responsibility to acquire and preserve non-institutional records. It included three chapters, one on developing an acquisition strategy, one on developing an acquisition policy, and one on appraisal criteria for the acquisition o f non-institutional records.^^

With the establishment o f an Acquisition Committee at the national level, and the development o f other archival programmes at the national, provincial, and territorial levels, the Canadian Council o f Archives could claim to be making progress in the

20

21 22

Canadian Council o f Archives, The Canadian Archival System: A Report on the National Needs

and Priorities o f Archives, Summary Report — August 1989 (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council of Archives, 1989), p. 23. See also D.R. Valpy, ‘The Canadian Council o f Archives and the National Acquisition Strategy: A Question o f Accountability,’ presentation to the Association of Canadian Archivists, Regina, Saskatchewan, June 1995.

Canadian Council of Archives, Acquisition Committee, ‘Report on the ‘Survey o f Archival Holdings in Canadian Repositories,’ ‘(Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council o f Archives, 1992), pp. 3-7. Canadian Council o f Archives, Building a National Acquisition Strategy: Guidelines for

Acquisition Planning (Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council o f Archives, 1995). Work on the publication was completed in the summer o f 1994, but the publication was not circulated until

development o f a Canadian archival system. By 1995 the funds available had increased to $2,436,492; from 1985 to 1995 a total o f $18,864,221 had been expended directly by the CCA.^^ In that year the CCA boasted that, since its establishment, it had funded the processing o f 34,500 metres o f textual materials, 4,000,000 photographs, 160,000 maps and architectural drawings, and 104,000 hours o f sound and moving image records. In one o f the most heavily funded programmes, to reduce the backlog o f unprocessed records in archival repositories, the CCA had by 1995 provided more than $10 million, which had been supplemented by matching funds from the archival repositories.^"^ While it cannot be proved that the CCA money contributed to the establishment o f new archives, it can be argued that the money furthered the aims o f many existing repositories.