La sociedad de riesgo y el derecho penal

work was guided by an advisory panel o f university scholars and others interested in Canadian studies. Representatives were appointed from each university in Canada to liaise with the Commission. The Commission had no executive powers, and its work was not commissioned by a specific government department or agency. Therefore it was at liberty to offer as broad a range o f recommendations as it wished. These could apply to associations, universities, schools, or government departments, and even to individual citizens.

Underlying the work o f the Commission was the belief that the academic community played a key role in the preservation o f Canadian nationalism. Universities had a responsibility to promote Canadian studies. They had to secure and make available all necessary resource materials. Universities served not just academics but society as a whole; they were ‘the chief institutions’ o f society, with fundamental social obligations.^®

The Symons Commission did not question the validity o f Canadian studies as a distinct academic field. Instead, it concemed itself with determining whether Canadian universities were contributing adequately to that field. The mandate o f the Commission was ‘to study, report, and make recommendations upon the state o f teaching and research in various fields o f study relating to Canada at Canadian universities.’ The Commission was to investigate a variety o f issues, including the nature o f Canadian studies programmes and courses, financial support for teaching and research in Canadian studies, and personnel and resource requirements. The Commission was also to identify ‘the location and extent o f library holdings and other resource materials relevant to Canadian

Symons, To Know Ourselves, vol. 1, pp. 2, 11-12, 20. Ibid., pp. 15-16.

studies, and access to these m a t e r i a l s . N o t a b l y , it was not specifically asked to examine the role o f archival repositories, simply to consider the nature o f research

32

sources.

The Research o f the Symons Commission

The Symons Commission held public hearings and conducted many formal and informal meetings at universities, colleges, and schools across the country. Public notices requesting input were placed in a variety o f academic journals and university-related publications, such as University Affairs. Heads o f learned societies were contacted, as were public associations and organisations with an interest in Canadian studies. In all, the Commission received over one thousand submissions from the public.

Because the Commission was not focusing on archival management in particular, it did not seek, nor did it receive, a great number o f briefs or comments about archival administration. Those it did receive expounded on the importance o f decentralising holdings and recognising the validity o f local archival repositories. One o f the most extensive submissions was prepared by the Dominion Archivist, Wilfred Smith, and the Assistant Dominion Archivist, Bernard Weilbrenner, on behalf o f the Public Archives o f Canada.

Smith and Weilbrenner examined the concept o f total archives and explained the pivotal role o f the Public Archives in its implementation. The job o f the Archives, they argued, was to accumulate ‘as complete a collection as possible o f original documents, or copies o f original documents, o f every kind and description, which will be useful sources for research into the development o f the country.’ It was natural for the Archives to collect both official records and private documents. Private records were, after all, ‘the fabric o f the cultural heritage o f Canada.’ The Public Archives had a responsibility to

31

32 Ibid., p. 1.

See T. Eastwood, ‘Attempts at National Planning for Archives in Canada, 1975-1985,’ The Public Historian, 8, no. 3 (Summer 1986): 78-79. This information was also confirmed in the interview with Ian Wilson, 4 November 1993.

Canadian studies, one which required the acquisition and preservation o f all types o f records from all sources.^^

Smith and Weilbrermer acknowledged that Arthur Doughty’s vision o f a single archival treasure house based in Ottawa was no longer either possible or logical. They did not consider the Public Archives to be the only significant archival repository in Canada. It could no longer acquire records from all levels o f government or from all parts o f the country. Provincial and local institutions had a responsibility to care for documents o f local interest.^"^ The Public Archives would be the first to relinquish its hold over acquisition in order to ensure local archival needs were met.

To this end. Smith and Weilbrenner recommended the establishment o f a network o f regional archives. These regional repositories would work in liaison with or, better still, under the control of, provincial archives. They would be located in large towns, preferably towns with a university. After all, university faculty and students were the ‘prime users’ o f archival records. Indeed, universities could administer many o f these regional archives, provided they guaranteed equzil access to all ‘serious’ researchers, academic or not.^^

In addition to the brief from the Public Archives, the Commission received submissions from regional groups interested in archival management. These groups reaffirmed the desire for decentralisation o f archival responsibility. The Archival Association o f the Atlantic Provinces, only a few months old, claimed that its very existence stemmed from a regional need to ‘rationalize and develop the archival resources o f Atlantic Canada.’ There was increasing public pressure for access to archival resources, evidenced by the rising number o f local museums and archival collections in the region. Academic research, government efficiency, and cultural development all required archival resources, in any medium. But the centralisation o f holdings in federal and provincial repositories did not allow for the local preservation o f resources. The

Public Archives o f Canada, Brief to the Commission on Canadian Studies, 28 February 1973 (Ottawa, ON: Public Archives of Canada, 1973), pp. 2-3.

35 Ibid., p. 2.

Association urged the Commission to recommend increased funding for local archives and improved training in archival management/^

Memorial University o f Newfoundland, a new university in a new and geographically isolated province, saw the diffusion o f archival materials as a ‘vital necessity.’ Scholarship in the regions would suffer without expanded copying programmes and better access to national, provincial, and regional records. There was at present no equality o f access. Academics based outside o f Ottawa were discouraged from research because o f the difficulty o f getting to the resources. Financial support for travel, copying, and research was critical.^^

Many considered microfilm the best tool for the circulation o f research materials. Microfilm was infinitely better than manual copying for fast, efficient, and error-free reproduction. The technology o f microreproduction was opening new opportunities for the protection and diffusion o f records. In its brief to the Symons Commission, the Canadian Library Association Microfilm Committee praised microfilm’s convenient size and the economy o f production. With microfilm, ‘vast quantities’ o f records were suddenly available even to remote repositories with limited resources. This Committee urged that microfilming programmes be considered a central means o f supporting Canadian studies.^^

The Recommendations o f the Symons Commission

The Symons Commission’s final report, organised into four volumes, included several recommendations about the role o f archival repositories.^^ This was despite the

36 37 38 39

Archival Association o f Atlantic Provinces, ‘Brief to the Commission on Canadian Studies, presented on behalf o f the Archival Association o f the Atlantic Provinces,’ 5 December 1973, T.D. Regehr Papers, University o f Saskatchewan Archives, MG 60, pp. 113-14.

Memorial University o f Newfoundland, ‘Brief to the Commission on Canadian Studies,’ 17 May 1973, Regehr Papers, p. 119.

Canadian Library Association, Microfilm Committee, ‘To the Commission on Canadian Studies from the Canadian Library Association, Microfilm Committee, A Brief submitted March 1973,’ Regehr Papers, p. 87.