Referentes necesarios

The Consultative Group report was reviewed and discussed by a wide variety o f archival groups. The Group anticipated negative reaction to its recommendation to decentralise archival responsibilities. After all, publicly funded archives had been operating as acquisition agencies for over one hundred years. To suggest that this activity was now undesirable, to claim that creating agencies were better placed to manage their records, seemed to contradict the essence o f the total archives concept.^^

Consultative Group, Canadian Archives, p. 109. Ibid., pp. 77, 81.

However, few archivists criticised this redefinition o f the total archives concept. Most agreed that the first priority o f archival institutions must be the records o f their sponsor agency.^® They accepted that various organisations, governments, and businesses would and should establish their own archival facilities. The shift from total archives to an archival system was easily accepted.

Implicit in the Consultative Group’s recommendations, and therefore in the archival community’s acceptance o f them, was the idea that new repositories, whether publicly or privately managed, would in fact be publicly accessible. Their records would still be available for research. And publicly funded archives would continue to acquire private records if necessary. The communications network among archives would ensure that there was no gap between institutions, regardless o f the status o f their sponsor agency.^^ While the institutions responsible for the records might change, the purpose for their preservation had not. Records were for public use, for research and study. The administrative perspective, the importance o f records management, was acknowledged. But it was seen as a vehicle for the ultimate purpose, to ensure the records were available for public use. As the Consultative Group noted, archival materials may not have been created for posterity, but posterity did have ‘a strong claim to make.’

The Consultative Group’s recommendation for an Extension Branch proved the most contentious to the archival community. The Association o f Canadian Archivists rejected the idea o f the Extension Branch and a Canadian Archival Association. Instead, it proposed a National Archival Records Commission, established by the federal government, to act as an arms-length agency providing funding for all levels o f archival a c t i v i t y . I n proposing this Commission, the Association drew on an argument that dated

72

ACA, ‘ACA Response to SSHRCC Report,’ Archives Bulletin 5, 3 (June 1980): 5.

See for example M. Beyea to M. McTieman, M. Swift, and I. Wilson, 12 July 1983, on the Archivist Task Force. Copy obtained privately.

See, for example, the 4th Interprovincial Conference of Ministers Responsible for Cultural and Historical Resources, ‘Status Report on Archival Legislation and Related Matters,’ 3 May 1982, p. 3. Copy obtained privately.

back to the days o f the Massey Commission: the provinces, not the federal government, were primarily responsible for culture and heritage/^

Objections to the idea o f an Extension Branch were perhaps not surprising, given the growing distaste among archivists for centralised responsibility for archives. The Consultative Group had acknowledged the legitimacy o f regional identities and responsibilities. It was only logical, therefore, that support for regional programmes not be funnelled through the Public Archives o f Canada.^"^ As Marion Beyea noted, ‘there is a desire to avoid the National Museums Corporation experience o f a large bureaucracy, Ottawa control and a disregard or lack o f understanding o f provincial situations and

. ,75

pnonties.

This rejection o f centralised control did not pose a major problem to the federal government. It was not anxious to take on more responsibility. Following the trend o f decentralisation, it considered federal/provincial cooperation as the best way to manage many public programmes, particularly those in the heritage field.^^

The goal o f an archival system was encouraged by T.H.B. Symons, who had come to recognise as misinterpretations some o f the findings o f his report from 1975. In 1982, Symons wrote an article for Archivaria advocating the expansion o f archival programmes. He argued that the two fundamental challenges to archives in the 1980s were the promotion o f greater public awareness o f the significance o f archives and the development o f an archival system.

Symons was discouraged by the widespread lack o f understanding o f the value o f archives. This ignorance was leading to the loss o f valuable historical materials, both public and private. Only the concerted acquisition efforts o f archivists had saved any records from ‘the garbage or the furnace.’ Symons complained that ‘archival records are

75 76

ACA, ‘ACA Response to SSHRCC Report,’ p. 5.

See, for example, the 4th Interprovincial Conference o f Ministers, ‘Status Report on Archival Legislation and Related Matters,’ p. 4.

M. Beyea to A.A. Saintonge, Department o f Historical and Cultural Resources, New Brunswick, 20 May 1983. Copy obtained privately.

See for example L.A. Dorais, National Museums of Canada, to B. Weilbrenner, Public Archives of Canada, 19 December 1984. Copy obtained privately.

an endangered species.’ In particular, he urged the preservation o f materials such as film, sound, and broadcast records, as well as the records o f arts organisations, businesses, labour organisations, and native groups. Backing down from his earlier proposal for university management, but not accepting a strictly institutional focus, Symons advocated that an archival network should be ‘based squarely on the official public archives o f the federal and provincial governments and make natural use o f the constitutional divisions and administrative structures o f the c o u n t r y . T o Symons, and the Consultative Group, the government still had a role to play in the preservation o f society’s documentary heritage.

Conclusion

In its study o f the state o f Canadian archives, the Consultative Group on Canadian Archives redefined the concept o f total archives. No longer would the responsibility for the preservation o f archival records rest solely on the shoulders o f large, publicly funded repositories. Creating agencies had a responsibility to care for their own records. Records management was critical to administration and efficiency, and the participation o f the archivist in records management was essential to ensure valuable historical records were preserved.

But there was a broader social imperative to preserving archival records. Records formed the basis o f society’s documentary heritage. They served posterity as well as the present. To ensure society had access to these valuable materials, now and in the future, the Consultative Group urged that the preservation o f records not be seen as a purely administrative task. Records management was important, but its purpose was not just efficiency.

The realities o f regional identities suggested that the total archives model applied in the past was no longer adequate. Communities would not be satisfied to see their records removed from their own territories and housed in distant repositories, whether

governmental or university-based. Municipalities, regional associations, businesses, and organisations were going to preserve their heritage locally, regardless o f archival theories. The archival community had to accept that fact.

To ensure the nation’s documentary heritage was preserved, a network o f public and private initiatives was required. The public sector would continue to play an important role in the preservation o f society’s records. Public archives were charged to redefine their responsibilities. The acquisition o f private records might be necessary in some instances, but more important was to encourage agencies to preserve their own records. Public archives should make every effort to encourage and support local and institutional archival developments. However, they should be ready to step in and acquire records that might otherwise be lost.

Public funding was essential to this archival network. A coordinated archival system would ensure that public funding was distributed and the archival community well served. Such a system would ensure that all those responsible for society’s archival heritage, including public and private agencies, had the means to fulfil their tasks.

The Consultative Group’s report, published in 1980, prompted a variety o f archival and government initiatives to establish a formal archival network. It also led to changes in the Public Archives o f Canada, to the emergence o f yet more community archives, and to the development o f educational programmes for archivists. The 1980s saw the first steps toward a Canadian archival system.