Dear Ms. Joly,
It has been encouraging to see the new Canadian federal government immediately implement promises made during the election campaign. The mandate letter from the Prime Minister to the Minister of Canadian Heritage outlines changes that will positively affect Canadian arts, culture, and heritage.
Unfortunately, that letter has a conspicuous absence: renewed financial and administrative support, as well as oversight of mandates and operations, for Library and Archives Canada.
LAC is one of the primary partners of nation-wide initiatives for libraries and archives, and works in conjunction with professional associations and the Canada Council of Archives. Its symbolic role has not changed since the National Archives and the National Library were amalgamated a decade ago, yet its practical role has been seriously diminished by funding cuts and operational changes.
At this time, management staff at LAC has fewer practicing archivists and librarians than ever before. Replacing competent and experienced professionals with administrative staff from other branches of government has negatively impacted the efficacy and direction of the organization, and the efficacy and direction of the entire profession as a result.
LAC has also outsourced large portions of specialized work, including through contracts such as with Ancestry, who have demanded exclusive controls to materials for years to come, depriving the public of access to their own records.
Archives across Canada are in the process of defining goals and priorities for the next decade. The “blueprint” document currently being discussed moves the onus for collaboration and new initiatives (such as an online platform where archives can give access to digitized holdings, as America has in the Digital Public Library of America, or a coordination of collections mandates so that the entirety of Canadian records are captured) away from Library and Archives Canada and onto other underfunded and un-mandated organizations and groups. In effect, LAC has shirked its responsibility to steward Canada’s cultural heritage.
One serious example is the National Archival Development Program, cancelled in 2012 and replaced in 2015 with the Documentary Heritage Communities Program. The new DHCP provides transfer funding similar to the NADP, but with eligibility that excludes the majority of archives in Canada, and exclusively funds fixed-term piecemeal projects such as exhibits and collection digitization. Previously, 92% of NADP recipients said the funding was very important to core operations, such as processing backlogs of unsorted material. That funding is sorely needed to cover basic expenses and staffing, and is needed by all archives in Canada, large and small.
It is imperative that the Minister of Canadian Heritage directs Library and Archives Canada to restore NADP-era eligibility to the DHCP. (A simultaneous increase in funding would also be welcomed, of course.)
Canada also lacks official public records legislation that would mandate the collection of federal and other government records. You can see this now, as Library and Archives Canada “asks” Stephen Harper to “donate” records from his time in office. This is not conducive to a transparent and accountable government.
I have two priorities to add to the Heritage portfolio’s mandate (which align with your campaign promises of accountability, transparency, electoral and government reform, and access to information):
That Library and Archives Canada be endowed with renewed funding and support, so that it can hire competent and experienced library and archives professionals and improve its offerings to our professional communities, and thereby to Canadian citizens;
That the Library and Archives Canada Act be reviewed and updated by Parliament. Pertinent sections should be repealed and replaced with a Public Records Act that would mandate and fund governmental records control and preservation by experienced records managers and archivists.
I would suggest that this second point would be better served by a separate body, distinct from Library and Archives Canada, that focuses solely on federal/provincial/municipal government records, census and research data, and Access to Information, rather than on materials donated by citizens or community groups. However, I believe that Parliament will make the best decision on how to go about this.
The only thing I would insist on is that changes need to be made.
Library and Archives Canada was repeatedly described by the previous federal administration as “an arm’s-length body” as a way to distance the government from the disastrous effects of their policies and budget cuts. I hope the new Department of Canadian Heritage will be able to bring LAC back into line with national and international priorities, and make it once again something that Canadian citizens can be proud of.
Allana Mayer, BA, MLIS
Toronto
PS: I don’t think anyone in the cultural heritage field would mind if you also threw out the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and made explicit copyright exemptions for libraries and archives.
