アーカイブズ18

ARCHIVES

Preserving the Archival and Historical Memory ofGovernment at Library and Archives Canada1
byDr. Ian E. Wilson
Librarian and Archivist of Canada
Tokyo, November 15, 2004
President Kikuchi, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen:First let me thank my distinguished colleague, Mr. Kikuchi, for his kind invitation to be here today. I
have been looking forward to this for some months. Japan has both a long history and a significant
archival tradition. I expect to learn more while I am here than I can contribute but I trust that mycomments may add to your discussions. It is difficult to prepare a paper many thousand kilometers
away but perhaps in my discussion of our efforts in Canada in developing our approaches to common
professional challenges you will find some ideas you can adapt and build upon to respond to your own
circumstances here.
I mentioned in my remarks on Friday that I expected to learn while I am here and indeed I have.
The National Archives of Japan kindly arranged for Mr. Stuckey and me to visit Kyoto this weekend,
an experience which will remain with me for my lifetime. I would, in fact, prefer to give this lecturewith all of us seated beside the Zen garden in the Ryoanji Temple, considering its meaning for ourchallenge. You know it well, with its carefully tended white sand and pebbles and the 15 larger rocks,
only 14 of which are visible from any human angle, the wall around with its patterns and the trees
and birds outside. To my mind I found there the key part of my talk for today. The garden might
represent the entire universe of records in a modern government or major institution. For much of
my career as an archivist, we have been as ants in this garden, examining each pebble forsignificance, finding a few of seeming importance and taking these back to our archives to becarefully maintained. Occasionally we saw part of the pattern made as the white pebbles and sand are
raked, and often changed through reorganization, the series of records. But seldom did we see thelarge rocks, the major records of the government, the enduring permanent part of administration thatmust remain. The challenge to our profession today and the key message from both Mr. Stuckey andmyself is to shift our focus, to rise above ground level and see the full garden and the broader social
１

I wish to acknowledge the kind and essential assistance of Dr. Richard Brown of Library andArchives Canada in the preparation of this paper.
115

2005/3

context in which it is created and functions. Our approach to appraisal needs to be based on anunderstaning and view of the full context of the entire record keeping system and its administrativeand societal context if we are to make informed decisions regarding the retention and disposal ofrecords. My paper outlines how we are attempting to do this in the national government in Canada.
Our topic today addresses an issue residing at the very heart of contemporary archival endeavor.
This is an issue, which continues to challenge archives at the national and other levels of jurisdiction,and has long stimulated debate and discussion internationally within the archival community,
especially over the past 20 years. I am referring here to the ongoing and fundamental business ofacquiring and preserving records for the purposes of establishing and building historical memory; ofmaking choices and taking decisions about the heritage and other values of information; of identifying
and selecting archival and historical documentation for the accessibility and use of society and its
future generations. In other words, I am going to be discussing some of the questions and problems
associated with our responsibility to define and articulate the documentary past, what we typically
call in the archival profession, the function of archival appraisal.
I think that all of us here would accept that the human propensity and capacity to remember
grounds, under-structures, and illuminates the human condition. Our accumulated wisdom andknowledge of the past over time (for example, the history of governments, wars, and famines; or the historyof sea-routes, or of food, or of science and technology; or the history of philosophy, ideas and literature, or thehistory of art and music; or our historical connections with our ancestors, our customs and traditions and ourfamilies through stories and recorded memories) continues to shape and define who we are both asindividuals and as members of communities, including at the level of society, culture, and nation-state.
These are cultural arguments but, of course, the official record is vital for other reasons: legal.
Throughout the 20th Century, we have seen our records used to settle and define border andboundary issues, to resolve disputes on land ownership, to protect and defend human rights andcommercial interests in our society. And, the records of constitution, treaties and exploration define
our way of government and our sovereignty. History and the record is a living force and we asarchivists have a unique stewardship responsibility on behalf of our societies and of generations, past,present and future. We are inevitably bound to the past (to explore the archaeology of our historicalmemory) and to remember. Our understanding of this experience in turn shapes our future. Canadianarchivists are fond of quoting one of my predecessors, Arthur Doughty, who as national archivist in
1916 wrote:

Of all national assets, archives are the most precious. They are the gift of one generation to anotherand the extent of our care of them marks the extent of our civilization.
This is a powerful statement of the value of our endeavor, written in the midst of the First World
War when in Europe the future of civilization itself seemed in doubt.
If it is clear (and we accept the assumption) that humanity is driven to remember the past, and to draw
inspiration, knowledge, experience and understanding within the context and meaning of history, thenthe memorization (or the selection or construction) of the past becomes enormously significant. For
centuries, this has been the primary role and occupation of archives: to provide a secure and116アーカイブズ18

monumental place of physical preservation for records and documentation dedicated to history,
knowledge and remembering. Prior to approximately, say, the mid-twentieth century, this
responsibility had not been especially onerous or troublesome from an intellectual perspective, insofar
as archives and archivists were largely dealing with records and documentation which had survived
over time; the documentary residue, which had escaped administrative disposal, or deliberate
destruction for political or other reasons, or the ravages of war, social unrest, fire, etc.
For a very long time, archives were primarily places of storage; warehouses or repositories forsurvived memory. They were passive monuments to the documentary past.
Today, however, the situation and circumstances of archives have changed considerably, and I will bealluding to some of these changes over the course of my presentation. Let me just say at this juncturethat the most fundamental change has been the growing requirement for archives to intervene inmemory-building: to make choices about which records will be preserved and made accessible, andcoincidentally, to engage directly in or to permit the destruction of records. In this context ofchanging roles and responsibilities for archives, it is important to recognize that the function ofappraisal is not simply about records acquisition and preservation. It is also about what one of mypredecessors, the late Dr. W. Kaye Lamb, called the "fine art of destruction", i.e., archival appraisal isconcerned with determining processes to "decide wisely and well what shall be destroyed and whatshall be retained".
Unlike the antiquarian role of "collecting" documentary residue generally assumed by archives prior
to the 20th century, archives now play a very active role in determining and shaping recorded
memory. In Canada, this responsibility was recognized fairly early on, beginning with the Report of
the Royal Commission Inquiring Into the State of the Records of the Public Departments of the
Dominion of Canada in 1914, when our federal government first began to develop processes andprocedures to provide for an orderly destruction of public records based on rational businessprinciples. The taking of official inventories in order to manage the life-cycle of government records(including the timing of their destruction by departments or their preservation by what was then the Public
Archives of Canada ) was first introduced in 1924 with the general records schedule for theadministrative records of the "public departments", and the application of records "scheduling" wassubsequently extended to the operational records of government during the years 1936 to 1945
through a series of central agency (Treasury Board) decisions. The profile of archives in this records
destruction decision-making was subsequently enhanced between 1945 and 1965 with theparticipation of the Dominion Archivist in the deliberations of the Public Records Committee,
composed of some of Canada's most senior bureaucrats, who spent many hours in regular meetings
assessing lists of dormant government records to make appropriate keep-destroy decisions andarrange transfers of historical records to the Public Archives.
Since that time, first with passage of the Public Records Order in 1966, afterwards the National
Archives of Canada Act 1987, and most recently with our new legislation, the Library and Archives ofCanada Act (LAC) of 21 May 2004, the role of the archives has inexorably evolved into a businesspreeminently occupied with the construction of memory, that is, the identification, organization andpreparation of the documentary past to provide it with coherence, unity and accessibility for publicuse. In Canada, it is now accepted fundamentally that the illumination of the past by archivists
1172005/3

through appraisal is primary, inevitable given our mission, and entirely rational, legitimate andnecessary. In fact, this is precisely the role recently and rather splendidly articulated for LAC by ourParliament, i.e., to be an institution occupied with the preservation of the documentary heritage ofCanada for the benefit of present and future generations; to serve as a source of enduring knowledge
accessible to all, contributing to the cultural, social and economic advance of Canada as a free anddemocratic society; and to serve as the continuing memory of the Government of Canada and its
institutions. I would emphasize, however, that archival appraisal continues to be as much about thedestruction of documentary memory as it does about its preservation and accessibility. Preserving
archival and historical memory involves necessarily documentary erasure. This is the central issue.
***
Briefly, over the next few minutes, I want to explain how Library and Archives Canada has decided
to approach the problem of identifying the archival and historical value of the records created andmanaged by our federal government. It is obvious that these records (as would be the case in Japan)
provide substantial evidence of how government administers the state and conducts the publicbusiness; of how it formulates and implements policy; of how it takes decisions, and delivers programs
and services to the civil constituency; of how it interacts with citizens within the broad context ofgovernance. It is also clear that these records help us to know and understand ourselves over timewithin social, cultural and historical dimensions, regardless of their administrative origins andpurposes. In fact, the importance of government records to Canadian archival and historical memory
has been formally recognized in our legislation under Sections 12 and 13, which allow Library andArchives Canada to intervene directly in the life-cycle management of information by government (norecord of government may be destroyed without the consent of the Librarian and Archivist ) in order tomake choices, and to require the transfer or protection of records deemed to have archival andhistorical value. In addition, our new legislation gives us the authority to require the transfer ofrecords, from any part of government, which in our view are at risk of loss or destruction.
Let me begin with a statement of the basic problem. The Government of Canada creates andmanages millions of records in all media, increasingly in electronic form, to the extent that the scale ofits current information holdings and assets is practically beyond the capacity of inventory or measure,and rapidly growing on a daily basis. It is simply not feasible for the archives to preserve all of theserecords, nor would this in any case be advisable, since it is obvious that great numbers of government
documents become superfluous after a time, sometimes after a very short time, and there would be
no justification for their ongoing archival preservation. Alternatively, there are many essential recordsof government activity, which provide critical information that must be retained permanently or forlong periods of time. In this context, we are obliged to address two very basic questions. Which
records of government should archives keep? Which records should archives allow government tothrow away?
Since 1991, Library and Archives Canada has actively pursued the development of strategic
responses to these questions, and we continue to seek improvements. In part, our decision to develop
an appraisal strategy for government records, subsequently supported over time by theory,
methodology and criteria, reflected the state of our appraisal program as it had evolved through the
1960s, 70s and 80s. While the archives was undoubtedly acquiring important records having nationalsignificance and historical importance used by the academic and other research communities, a series
118アーカイブズ18

of internal studies and audits conducted in the late 80s noted the following:
1.

The selection criteria utilized by archivists to appraise records was highly subjective anddecision-making about the value of records was inconsistent, resulting in variances andanomalies in the nature and extent of the records being acquired.
Typically, the archival assessment of government records either followed or appliedinterpretations of records values which had de facto attained codified status within the North
American archival profession during the 1960s and 70s, i.e., the identification and selection ofrecords in reference to their primary, secondary, evidential, informational, historical research,legal, fiscal and other qualities as originally proposed in the writings of the American Archivist
Theodore Schellenberg.

2.

The archival holdings were not comprehensive in the sense of documenting government
programs and activities from a global perspective.
There were significant gaps in our holdings (e.g., very little about women or natural resources orscience and technology), and other portfolio domains were oversubscribed (records of the military,
foreign affairs, central agencies). In some instances, the appraisal and acquisition of government
records reflected specific interests of both archivists and particular research communities.

3.

The government records holdings of the archives were growing at an alarming rate.
In a number of cases, because the actual appraisal process took so long, decision-making was
being postponed to a later date ( selective retention ) in order to meet the information
management demands of government institutions.

4.

Important records of government activity at the upper executive echelons of policy
formulation, decision-making and program management were only sporadically transferred tothe archives, coinciding with a disproportionate archival representation and acquisition ofrecords documenting lower-level bureaucratic business.
The archives were also acquiring repetitive and largely homogenous case file series of basic
program and service transactions.

5.

There were significant issues of accountability, insofar as very little documentation was being
prepared to justify appraisal decisions in the form of an intellectual audit trail.
Serious questions were being addressed to the archives about the rationale behind some of its
appraisal decision-making.

In effect, the process of our appraisal decision-making was slow and highly subjective, largely
uncoordinated, not very well documented, unresponsive to the information management needs ofgovernment, and yielding, in the end, mixed results in terms of the nature, quality and value of therecords being preserved.
Other major factors influencing our decision to develop a strategic approach to appraisal were theincreasing complexity of government in terms of its program, service and business management; thecoincidental and spectacular growth in the extent of the information produced and managed in this119

2005/3

new administrative environment; and finally, the arrival and catalyst of electronic systems technology,of which we are all now familiar at the desk-top.
To put it simply, the traditional approach to appraisal ( based on the approach advocated by T. R.
Schellenberg) we were following at that time, which determined the archival and historical importanceof records based on their reading and examination in reference to criteria of value ( evidential,
informational, fiscal, legal, etc. ), could not cope with the scale and complexity of government
administration, or the superabundance of its information and its new and evolving forms of automatedrecord-keeping, or the impact of technology on how government was creating, managing and using
information. Consequently, we needed to find alternative ways and means to appraise government
records.
We also recognized that our appraisal activities (however they were rationalized from an intellectual
perspective) needed to be positioned within the broader context of government business, notably

within the domain of information management. In Canada at the federal level, responsibility andaccountability for the management, preservation, and accessibility of government information isshared amongst a number of central stakeholders: Treasury Board Secretariat, Public Works andGovernment Services Canada, Library and Archives Canada, the Offices of the Information andPrivacy Commissioners, the Department of Canadian Heritage, the Office of the Auditor General; andlast but not least, the Deputy Heads (the senior level of the professional bureaucracy) of all government
agencies. In fact, it is the policy of the Government of Canada that all federal government institutions"manage information to facilitate equality of access and promote public trust, optimize information
sharing and re-use in accordance with legal and policy obligations", and further that they "ensure that
information is created, acquired, or maintained to meet program, policy, and accountability
requirements is relevant, reliable and complete". This policy is based on acceptance of the idea that
information is an asset and tht it is the responsibility of all program managers to manage it effectively
in the public interest.
Library and Archives preserves only those government records that meet its appraisal criteria ofnational archival or historical significance. The strategy facilitating this selection process is designed
to provide Canadians with complete historical documentation of government's decision-making andbusiness activities. It is not intended to assure the preservation of all government records. In fact,
only a small volume of the government's records, compared to the total information produced bygovernment, is finally identified for archival preservation, approximately 1%. The vast majority ofrecords created and maintained by government are disposed of by institutions through theapplication of Records Disposition Authorities as part of their records management programs.
Treasury Board's Policy on the Management of Government Information (2004) establishes the recordkeeping responsibilities and accountability of government institutions. This policy requires
government institutions to assess their information requirements as part of their strategic planningand business needs analysis. In the normal course of business, the ongoing requirement to retain
records is generally established by government institutions according to:ÈOperational needs associated with making policy, taking decisions, delivering programs,120アーカイブズ18

providing services or completing business transactions;È

Legal requirements, meaning compliance with laws or regulations which require the retentionof records for prescribed periods of time; andÈ

Legal considerations, or the keeping of records to afford protection during litigation,
investigation or audit.

LAC is a center of record-keeping expertise. In compliance with its mandate to facilitate themanagement of government records, Library and Archives helps government institutions byproviding advice and orientation in the development of information industry standards and protocols,
guidelines, and best practices, and we have recently created a new organization specifically toaddress IM issues across government (Government Information Management Office (GIMO).)
Let me now provide you with highlights of the changes we have made to our government records
appraisal program over the past 14 years. Fundamental changes of intellectual, cultural and businesssubstance of the nature I will outline below do not happen overnight. Since becoming National
Archivist (1999), and now Librarian and Archivist of Canada, I have continued to re-evaluate and reengineer the appraisal process, working with my senior colleagues across government, looking toestablish further business efficiencies and rationale both in the protection of heritage memory andinformation management.
Essentially, to respond to the challenge of preserving government's historical memory, Library andArchives Canada has adopted a strategy to identify and protect a comprehensive and representativearchival record of the administration of the national state, the machinery of the federal government,
and the interaction between government and its citizens. Broadly speaking, the archival acquisition orprotection of government records by Library and Archives is related to their national significance as
determined through an exhaustive appraisal process in support of the following objectives:È

To preserve selected records which document the deliberations, decisions and actions ofgovernment in relation to its assigned business functions, programs and activities, as well as
records that establish the sovereignty, organization and administration of government.

È

To preserve selected records which provide government and the public with accurate,authentic and integral information about the policies, decisions and programs of government
institutions over time for the purposes of review, scrutiny and understanding;ÈTo preserve selected records which document the impact of government decision-making upon
citizens and groups in Canada and the interaction between the Canadian public and the federal
state;

ÈTo preserve selected records that are considered essential to protect the collective andindividual rights and privileges of Canadians and their social, cultural and physicalenvironment;121

2005/3

ÈTo preserve selected records which contain information unique to government that will
substantially enrich understanding about Canada's history, society, culture and people;

È

To preserve selected records that the Government of Canada is required to maintain for a
substantial period of time by law, or by virtue of their ongoing, long-term business value togovernment.

Library and Archives Canada calls this strategic approach macro-appraisal.
During the actual appraisal process, Library and Archives undertakes a rigorous analysis of thefunctions and activities of federal departments and agencies, seeking to understand their policy,
program and service delivery environments and their importance to government and Canadiansociety at large, and to identify the substance and context of the documentation being created andmanaged by institutions in support of public business enterprise. Using the knowledge gained
through this business systems analysis, LAC acquires selected records from offices and responsibility
centers in departments and agencies, which best illustrate the operations of government and thebroad framework of national governance as expressed in the criteria outlined above. Decisions about
the archival status of government records, and permission to dispose of records without archival or
historical value, are conveyed to government institutions in the form of Records Disposition
Authorities.
One of the critical changes to be noted here is the macro-appraisal focus on the context of records
creation in relation to the business of government, rather than on the information content of therecords themselves. In other words, we no longer generally consider the importance of information
measured against research and other criteria of value, but instead analyze the importance (from bothbusiness systems and government administrative perspectives) of the primary offices of responsibility
formulating policy, taking decisions, and delivering programs and services directly in relation tolegislation and mandate. Records are only consulted on a very limited basis to confirm our researchand hypotheses about the functions and programs of government, and to determine the extent of thematerial that is required to provide sufficient archival documentation and evidence of these activities.
This approach represents a fundamental departure from traditional archival appraisal thinking, which
has typically focused its decision-making on the historical significance of records.
Because Library and Archives is responsible for preserving government's archival and historicalmemory, it bears an obligation to explain to Canadians (and to others who may wish to use its archival
holdings) how and why decisions are made regarding the archival preservation of government records.
LAC now maintains comprehensive documentation of the government records appraisal process,including the rationale supporting preservation decisions for all Records Disposition Authorities. Oneof the most recent innovations at LAC in this regard is the development of a database withsophisticated search tools containing all of our corporate appraisal documentation, which we call the
Records Disposition Authority Control System ( RDACS ). LAC has just gone on-line with thisinformation to all government employees via our federal extranet environment, and the capacity andprotocols necessary to provide full Canadian public and global access to this data through the Internet
122アーカイブズ18

is being put in place as I speak to you today. In the very near future (within the next 12 months), herein Japan, you will be able to see all of our internal appraisal documentation: records disposition
authority records, appraisal reports, agreements with government agencies and memoranda ofunderstanding, terms and conditions of records transfer, program studies, pilot projects, etc., allcorporate information that LAC creates and manages to conduct its government records appraisal
business and make memory preservation and destruction decisions.
In effect we are saying that to understand the archival record that we have selected to preserve, theresearcher should also be able to understand the full administrative context of the record and thearchival rationale for the selection of that small percentage which we have kept.
I am very proud of this product (I believe it is unique in the archival world) for two reasons. First, theprovision of this information to Canadians and others addresses the issue of accountability. Given themonumental nature of our work in terms of creating and managing history, and as a public
department of the federal government with resources allocated to this purpose, Canadians are entitledto know how their tax dollars are being spent and utilized in the portfolio of cultural and heritage
memory preservation. This is, after all, a national endeavor of collective remembering at public
expense. Precisely for this reason, we have also placed our appraisal program on a business footing by
incorporating a project management approach to records disposition decision-making in partnershipwith government agencies, wherein every phase of appraisal and disposition is documented, agreed
and tracked in a database (Records Disposition Management Information System). In addition, a detailed,step-by-step explanation of the government records appraisal strategy and methodology followed by
LAC has been made available on our web-site at the Information Services Management web-pageunder the heading, Government Records Appraisal and Disposition Program. This web-page also
includes a number of other program tools, including published versions of records disposition
authorities, which have government-wide application (Multi-Institutional Disposition Authorities).
More important in my view, however, is the opportunity we have to make some essential connections
between archives and our communities in terms of defining, articulating, preparing andunderstanding the documentary past. Through its records description systems and associatedholdings management processes, LAC maintains the attributes of archival government records asevidence; ensures that these records remain in continuous official custody; and keeps with the official
archival holdings finding tools that provide researcher access to the records. In my opinion, all of thecustodial and appraisal information archives develop should be available to the public in a connected
way, enabling users not only to understand what the archives maintains in the way of collections andholdings and how they may be used, but also what it does not have and why: what decisions weremade to preserve and acquire or to permit the destruction of records, and what the intellectual
thinking and rationale and business processes were around these choices. In other words, archival
appraisal at LAC is not simply about identifying the records that will tell the stories of our history, it
is also about telling the story of how we have decided to tell our historical stories; of how our society
will be able to remember in the future. Explaining the context and implications of appraisal to
Canadians and others is an important component of our broader strategic vision moving LAC forward
towards greater openness, transparency and accessibility, and a significant step in the evolution of a
new knowledge institution dedicated to the identification, preservation and use of archival and123

2005/3

historical memory.
I would like to conclude my presentation today with some remarks concerning the nature of thechallenges we still have before us at LAC, not only in reference to building accessible historicalmemory for social and cultural purposes, but more generally in relation to our role and responsibilities
in enabling government's management of information as a critical commodity and public asset within
the new national and global knowledge economy. As I mentioned earlier, LAC has a legislated
mandate to facilitate the management of information by government in the interests of supporting
and transacting public business broadly in terms of policy development, resource allocation,
developing functions and structures of governance, providing for transparency and accountability ofdecision-making, and delivering programs and services to Canadians.
Last year, the Auditor General of Canada reviewed our government records appraisal program andcriticized some of its limitations, noting deficiencies and expressing concern over, for example, theabsence of Records Disposition Authority coverage extending to records in all government
institutions; the volume of records not yet transferred to archives and their physical condition (records
at risk ); and the slow rate of progress in the process of their appraisal evaluation and thecorresponding production of Authorities. It was also acknowledged, however, that the size of theappraisal task before LAC was enormous and that the program was critically under-funded. The
Auditor concluded that despite the sophistication of its methodology and the recent steps tomodernize and re-plan its business process, LAC does not have the resource capacity to pursue therecords appraisal and disposition agenda of government in an effective and timely manner.
Coincidentally, the recent annual reports of the Information Commissioner (who administers our national
Access to Information legislation ) and studies undertaken and surveys conducted by the Chief
Information Officer Branch of the Treasury Board Secretariat (which is responsible for the developmentof government's Information Management Policy) have indicated that record-keeping in the Governmentof Canada is in a state of "crisis". Records are not being inventoried and managed appropriately, andthey are not well described and accessible. Consequently, there are serious issues in relation to
government's business accountability and transparency, and its capacity and competency to lever andadvantage its knowledge assets in global economic competition. And of course, because government
information is not being well managed, well described, or controlled in a logistic manner under rules
and protocols, and because it is not comprehensively accessible or substantially linked to or directly
supportive of business process, LAC effort to make archival and historical choices is significantly
hampered.
In addition to these critiques by external observers, I must admit here, amongst professional
colleagues, that while our archivists have done excellent work on the preparation of appraisals, using
the macro-appraisal methodology, and while we have issued some excellent decisions on retention anddisposal of records, I remain far from comfortable about the capacity of departments to actually
implement these decisions. We need to evaluate the quality of the record we receive fromdepartments to verify that they have followed our decisions. It is not enough for us simply for us to
do an appraisal and issue our authority for transfer or disposal, we need equally to ensure that theresult is what we intended. Our commitment is not to a process but to the integrity of the official
record. Are we certain we are accomplishing what we set out to accomplish?
124アーカイブズ18

Our challenge is both one of capacity and of our approach. One program innovation we are pursuingin a vigorous way under my direction is the development of strategic partnerships with selected
government institutions, which simultaneously address IM accountability issues inside federal
departments in relation to operational program and service delivery and LAC concerns about
heritage memory preservation. At this time, our primary focus is on paper records which, despite theadvent and use of electronic record-keeping continue to be produced by government in vast quantity,
and in particular we are concentrating on government's legacy business records.
Our research indicates that government is currently storing approximately 2,000,000 cubic feet
(approx. 620,000 linear metres) of paper records and is spending CDN$250,000,000 per year to maintainthem. We also know through analysis and discussions with departments that many of these records
no longer have value to government from a business perspective, and that only a very small fractionof them have documentary heritage value to LAC. With our client agencies, our goal is to eliminate
this paper backlog and the costs of its storage in order to redeploy the savings towards thesustainable management of information having ongoing and long-term value to government andCanadians. To meet this objective, we are systematically applying archival macro-appraisal
methodology to the paper backlog with expanded selection criteria to address departmental businessneeds in large-scale records scheduling initiatives.
Let me give you an example. LAC has recently embarked on a pilot project with the Department of
Health Canada (Health Canada) to develop a Risk Management Strategy to eliminate this agency's
paper records backlog of approximately 100,000 meters. The records are under minimum descriptive
control to the extent that the majority are not accessible, the department is struggling with the costof storage and the absence of protocols to manage them effectively including the destruction of nonessential information, and LAC has few if any details to identify archival records and produce a
disposition authority to permit the department to move forward. By sampling a discrete quantity of
the records, and by applying archival macro-appraisal methodology to the sample including businesscriteria provided by the department, the project is defining a risk-based strategy to determine thevalue of the information, which could be subsequently applied to the entire backlog. The project isdesigned to both satisfy the business needs of the department and archival requirements, and we arehoping that the strategy and lessons learned will have broader, government-wide application. This isjust one of a number of IM-Archival pilot projects recently launched by LAC looking at particular
records disposition issues related to legacy business records, including the management of legal andcase records at the Department of Justice, the imagery holdings of the National Air Photo Library of
Natural Resources Canada, the decentralized regional records of the Department of Fisheries andOceans, and functional applications of macro-appraisal to backlogs at Citizenship and Immigration andthe Department of Agriculture. We have also developed an IM Capacity Check Tool for government
agencies to self-assess the state of institutional record keeping and plan corrective measures withLAC.
In the end, however, what is really required is a significant investment of resources by government in
the management of its information. Our joint macro-appraisal initiatives with certain departments arepromising, and will provide strategic frameworks for decision-making around the value of records
125

2005/3

from both business and archival perspectives, but they are nevertheless locally limited and hardly
sufficient to cope with the enormous scale and complexity of government's IM issues. These are very
serious problems that cannot be resolved simply through intellectual effort on an ad hoc basis: theyrequire major capital investment in government-wide IM infrastructure building. These days, an
important element of my work is to sensitize senior managers in government to the challenges of the
IM agenda: to the need to put serious money on the table to enable Canada to manage its publicbusiness effectively, capitalize on its information assets, and remain competitive in the new knowledge
economy. There are senior allies in support of this agenda, and I am cautiously optimistic thatinvestment will be forthcoming, as government has lately acknowledged a number of significant
administrative problems associated with the absence of comprehensive IM capacity. At the moment,
Canada is also considering major revisions to its federal Access to Information legislation, which could
include the expansion of its coverage to all government entities. Things are coming together, and thetiming may now be right to move the IM agenda in government forward with new money both in theinterests of good governance and the preservation of our documentary heritage.
Thank you very much.

NOTE:
Information related to LAC's Government Records Appraisal and IM programs is available on-line at
http://www.collectionscanada.ca under the Information Management Services web page, which also
includes multiple links to other information management sites.
126