“National Significance”: The Evolution

and Development of Acquisition Strate-

gies in the Manuscript Division, National
Archives of Canada

MYRON MOMRYK

RÉSUMÉ Les questions reliées à l’acquisition de documents privés ainsi qu’à leur
« importance nationale » furent une préoccupation constante dans le secteur des
archives multiculturelles et, plus généralement, dans le domaine des archives sociales
et culturelles. Cet article décrit l’évolution des diverses tentatives de la Division des
manuscrits des Archives nationales du Canada pour trouver des réponses à ces ques-
tions. Il examine aussi quelques-unes des pressions, venues tant que l’intérieur que de
l’extérieur des Archives nationales, pour produire des solutions acceptables. En
l’absence de solutions appropriées, l’accent peut quelquefois être mis sur le processus
et les procédures. L’auteur de cet article a participé à ces efforts mais en fut également
un observateur attentif et intéressé.

ABSTRACT Questions relating to acquisition of private records and “national signif-

icance” have been a constant preoccupation in the area of multicultural archives and,
more generally, in the area of social and cultural archives. This article describes the
evolution of the various attempts to provide answers to these questions in the Manu-
script Division of the National Archives of Canada. It looks at some of the pressures to
produce generally acceptable solutions from both within and outside the National
Archives. In the absence of appropriate solutions, emphasis may shift to process and
procedures. The author wrote this article as a participant in these efforts and, also, as an
interested observer.

One of the main areas for the development of acquisition policies and proce-
dures in private sector archives at the National Archives of Canada has been
the Manuscript Division.1 The development of acquisition policies and activi-
ties was closely interrelated with attempts to formulate the concept of
“national significance.” The need to develop acquisition strategies and define
the concept of national significance has been emphasized in almost all recent
reports and studies at the National Archives. This paper will focus on the

1 For an earlier discussion of the acquisition function within the Manuscript Division, see Judi
Cumming, “Beyond Intrinsic Value Towards the Development of Acquisition Strategies in the
Private Sector: The Experience of the Manuscript Division, National Archives of Canada,”
Archivaria 38 (Fall, 1994), pp. 232–39.
152 Archivaria 52

attempts to develop the concept of national significance in relation to the

acquisition of textual archival material in the former Manuscript Division,
more particularly, the acquisition of archival material in the social and cultural
area.
The 1960s are generally accepted as the years that saw the flowering of
various concepts of Canadian identity. The work of the Royal Commission
on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the national celebrations surrounding the
Canadian Centennial in 1967, and the establishment of new universities and
new history departments were some of the events which encouraged a
greater interest in Canadian history and culture. The growth of nationalist
sentiment, federal government support for cultural projects, and the general
feeling that Canada was no longer a “colony” fostered this sense of Cana-
dian identity. The 1960s were the years of nationalist politics and the rise of
social and political movements: feminism, multiculturalism, Aboriginal
rights, Black Power, and others. These were also years of general challenges
to authority. Regionalism was recognized as one of the significant building
blocks of Canadian identity and Canadians tended to define themselves
against “centres.”
The 1960s were also a period of major transition for the National Archives
of Canada. The growth of provincial archives and the increasing number of
local and university archival institutions also obliged the Manuscript Division
to review its relationship to local and regional records. It was at this time that
the concept of national significance emerged to help distinguish the appropri-
ate roles for national, provincial, and local archival institutions.
After years of generally passive acquisition, the Manuscript Division began
an active programme to acquire archival records reflecting aspects of scien-
tific, economic, cultural, and social life in Canada to document the major
changes in Canadian society outside of politics. In the mid-1960s, the Manu-
script Division undertook a survey of prominent individuals, families, and cor-
porate entities as a basic step in developing a systematic programme for the
acquisition of private papers.2 This programme had other national goals. As
Michael Swift wrote, “...The programme would force other archives in the
country to examine their own programmes, to question the effectiveness of
what they were doing and to begin thinking about and discussing proposals for
the development of national programmes on a co-operative basis.”3
The concept of total archives became a popular subject of discussion among
archivists in Canada. This concept advocated the broadest possible preserva-
tion of all types of archival records from both private and public sources to

2 This was known as SNAP, Systematic National Acquisition Programme.

3 Michael D. Swift, “The Canadian Archival Scene in the 1970s: Current Developments and
Trends,” Archivaria 15 (Winter, 1982–83), p. 48.
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 153

document all aspects of Canadian history.4 The National Archives had

acquired the records of the various federal government departments which
presented an official perspective on Canadian government operations and
activities and on Canadian history generally. On the other hand, the acquisi-
tion of records from private individuals and organizations provided a different
historical perspective on the development of Canada, often in strong contrast
to the federal government perspective and interpretation. This approach to
develop a “balanced record” was the core of the total archives concept of
archives acquisition.
New sections and programmes were created as the Manuscript Division
grew and reorganized. Among the new sections were the Social and Cultural
Archives Section, the Economic and Scientific Archives Section, and in 1972,
the National Ethnic Archives Programme which later became the Multicul-
tural Archives Section.
The announcement of the federal Multiculturalism Policy in October 1971
introduced new perspectives on the interpretation of national significance.
There had been the earlier statement on the two official languages of Canada,
but the Multiculturalism Policy stated that there was no one official “culture”
and that all Canadian cultures were recognized as integral parts of the Cana-
dian experience.
The federal government poured funds and resources into the Multicultural
Archives Programme at the Public Archives of Canada because it was perceived
that the private record holdings relating to the ethnocultural groups were under-
represented. Drawing on previous acquisition practices such as the Systematic
National Acquisition Programme (SNAP), lists of national ethnocultural orga-
nizations were created and letters were sent inviting them to consider the Public
Archives as the repository for their historical records. This invitation produced
a great variety of replies, many of which arrived years later.
The acquisition of archival material for the Multicultural Archives Section
compelled the archivists to review and debate the definition of national signif-
icance. Eventually a consensus was reached within the section regarding a
working definition of national significance. Archivists worked with specific
ethnocultural groups and were generally familiar with their history and devel-
opment in Canada. Research was conducted in the records of the Immigration
Branch (RG76) to determine which ethnocultural organizations had a long
history of contacts with the federal government. Archivists contacted national

4 For an explanation of this concept, see the article by Wilfred Smith, “Total Archives: The
Canadian Experience,” Archives et bibliothèques de Belgique 57 (1986), pp. 323–46. A more
recent discussion of the history of the concept of “total archives” in Canadian archives is pre-
sented in the articles by Laura Millar, “Discharging our Debt: The Evolution of the Total
Archives Concept in English Canada,” Archivaria 46 (Fall 1998), pp. 103–146; “The Spirit
of Total Archives: Seeking a Sustainable Archival System,” Archivaria 47 (Spring 1999),
pp. 46–65.
154 Archivaria 52

organizations with a known record of activities at the national level and invited
them to donate their archival records to the Public Archives. There were orga-
nizations and associations with a national headquarters whose branches and
activities were located in two or more provinces. In some cases, national orga-
nizations whose branches were found mainly within one province were also
considered because of the particular evolution of the history of that ethnocul-
tural group. In other words, the term “national,” and therefore “national signif-
icance,” assumed a subjective character. This was in conformity with the
informal approach of the Manuscript Division towards the identification of
ethnocultural groups where the Manuscript Division would accept the specific
group’s definition of themselves as national entities. As in the case with other
Canadian national organizations, the archivists still had to undertake historical
research to ensure that a potential donor organization had a record of national
service to their community and therefore met some of the criteria to be consid-
ered as nationally significant.
The founding of the Multicultural History Society of Ontario in 1976 and
the development of archival institutions within some of the ethnocultural
groups created some competition for archival material. This led to debates
with these institutions regarding acquisition policies and definitions of
national significance since some had also sought to develop “national institu-
tions” and acquire archival material that was of national significance for their
own ethnocultural groups.5
The Public Archives grew significantly in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The staff which numbered approximately 260 in 1968 increased during the
next ten years to over 700 members.6 The number of archival institutions more
than doubled in the period 1960–1978 from seventy to over 180.7 At the
national level, the archival profession also gained recognition. In June 1975,
the Association of Canadian Archivists (ACA) was founded and an umbrella
organization, the Bureau of Canadian Archivists (BCA), was created to pro-
mote archival and professional matters before the federal government.
During these years, new archivists at the Public Archives attended the
month-long archives course and received much of their early guidance regard-
ing acquisition at this course.8 This course supplemented formal and informal

5 For an example of this criticism see the article by Robert F. Harney, “Ethnic Archival and
Library Materials in Canada: Problems of Bibliographic Control and Preservation,” Ethnic
Forum 2, no. 2 (Fall, 1982), pp. 3–31.
6 Michael D. Swift, “The Canadian Archival Scene in the 1970s: Current Developments and
Trends,” Archivaria, 15 (Winter, 1982–83), p. 47.
7 Terry Eastwood, “Attempts at National Planning for the Archives in Canada, 1975–1985,” The
Public Historian 8, no. 3 (Summer, 1986), p. 81.
8 For example, see the presentation by R.S. Gordon, “Appraisal of Historical Documents (Mon-
etary Evaluation) 1972,” Canadian Historical Association, Archives Section, Papers Prepared
for the 1974 Archives Course, Ottawa, 1974.
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 155

training received in the sections. Most training was on-the-job under the
supervision of section chiefs and senior archivists. Other archivists had con-
siderable experience as researchers at the National Archives and were familiar
with archival practices and procedures before they were hired.
In 1975, a task force on acquisitions was established in order to define vari-
ous acquisition terms and processes and to determine acquisition roles and
responsibilities. In the absence of formal acquisition policies, archivists at the
Public Archives had interpreted its mandate with some informality. While this
casual approach to acquisition sometimes gave the archivists a wide range of
flexibility which assisted in acquisition negotiations with donors, it tended to
encourage undefined and open-ended acquisition activity. Acquisition objec-
tives existed mainly within each custodial area or section and not at the branch
or departmental levels. Basic questions such as the acquisition responsibility
of the Public Archives as a national archival repository were rarely discussed.
Fundamental terms such as national significance still lacked an adequate defi-
nition to facilitate the evaluation of acquisition activities, the collections, and
the acquisition methods. One of the goals of this task force was to redefine an
acquisition policy for the Public Archives through a close examination of the
concept of national significance, and if necessary, contribute to the consider-
able modification of this concept.
Another goal was the definition of types of material of regional importance
which were also nationally significant. The definition of acquisition objectives
was a difficult and sometimes an impossible task, and as a result each custo-
dial area within the Public Archives was left with the responsibility for defin-
ing their own objectives and goals. Since most of the sections were newly
established, much of the discussions at that time revolved around the acquisi-
tion mandates of each custodial area, overlapping areas of acquisition, and
attempts to define and limit these areas. The organizational structure of the
Public Archives, which was based on a media approach to acquisition, encour-
aged each custodial area to follow an autonomous acquisition policy. Attempts
to produce departmental objectives at that time proved to be unsuccessful.
Both the Ian E. Wilson Report in 1980 and the Culture and Communica-
tions Study Team Report to the Task Force on Program Review discussed the
opportunities for more consultation and co-operation in the Public Archives’
acquisition activity. A co-operative acquisition strategy would mean that an
institution meets its acquisition mandate by co-operating with other institu-
tions. However, concerns were expressed that co-operation could mean the
delegation of acquisition responsibilities, the dispersal of collections, and even
a fragmentation of individual collections.9
In 1982, the federal Cultural Policy Review Committee (Applebaum-Hébert

9 Public Archives of Canada, Program Evaluation, Evaluation Assessment Report, Acquisitions

Component, Final Report (3 March 1987), p. 4.
156 Archivaria 52

Committee) noted the possible conflict between the traditional acquisition

policies of the Public Archives under the concept “total archives” and the
acquisition objectives of provincial, regional, and local archives for their col-
lections.10 Two significant events took place in the summer of 1982 which
attempted to confront some of the problems of the archival institutions in Can-
ada. A “National Congress” on archives was held in Kingston in June to pro-
vide a forum for discussion and resolution of institutional problems. There
was also a special meeting of the Dominion, Provincial, and Territorial Archi-
vists to prepare recommendations on archival development.11 In 1985, this
group submitted a series of resolutions which recognized archives as “a funda-
mental resource for the development of a well-informed society and for the
good conduct of public and private affairs.”12
Several external studies examined the Public Archives’ acquisition mandate
and activity. In 1983, the Auditor General requested the Public Archives to
clarify the meaning of “the systematic preservation of government and private
records of Canadian national significance” as stated in the Public Archives
mandate.13 A definition of national significance was needed since other Cana-
dian archival institutions also acquired material of national significance. The
audit noted that professional judgement was central to acquisitions but sug-
gested that, because of changing researcher needs and scarce resources, some
form of criteria was needed to direct this work. In 1984, the Historical
Resources Branch undertook to define an acquisitions policy.
In August 1984, Robert S. Gordon of the Manuscript Division issued a doc-
ument, Definitions – Acquisition Terminology, in which he offered a definition
of national significance. He stated that national significance was “... a term
used to define the contents and importance of records, and the status of cre-
ators of such records. The creators of records of ‘national significance,’ be
they governmental authorities, corporate bodies or individuals must, through
their activities, achievements and reputations, transcend the local or provincial
boundaries and become nationally- or internationally-recognized entities. The
records created must document the development of Canada in a field of activ-
ity, which may cover any area of human endeavour from the earliest period of
history to the present day.”14 This definition was very much within the total

10 Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee, Summary of Briefs and Hearings (Ottawa, 1982),
p. 57.
11 Michael D. Swift, “The Canadian Archival Scene in the 1970s,” p. 52.
12 Terry Eastwood, “Attempts at National Planning for the Archives in Canada,” p. 88.
13 Report of the Auditor General of Canada for the Fiscal Year ending 31 March 1983, p. 466.
14 Public Archives of Canada, Definitions – Acquisition Terminology (August, 1984). This term
was further elaborated in an appendix. Robert S. Gordon was Director of the Manuscript Divi-
sion for many years.
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 157

archives tradition of the Public Archives. However, it tended to place a stron-

ger emphasis on the “national” or geographic aspect of the definition rather
than on the “significance.”15
The Report of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada’s (SSHRCC) Advisory Committee on Archives in 1984 stressed the
need for a clear mandate and leadership role for the Public Archives.16 How-
ever, at that time other priorities relating to legislative, accommodation, and
financial restraint problems were much more important and immediate issues
for the Public Archives and discussions of acquisition problems, by necessity,
were postponed.
A new development was the appointment in 1985 of Jean-Pierre Wallot as
the Dominion (later National) Archivist. He was known to archivists through
his involvement with the Canadian Historical Association and also as a
researcher at the Public Archives. He brought new energy and determination
to deal with the outstanding problems at the Public Archives.
In August 1985, the Nielsen Task Force on Program Review also noted that
a comprehensive acquisition policy should be developed and applied in order
that the value of new acquisitions be considered against their future mainte-
nance costs. In other words, cost factors such as conservation, processing, and
storage resources could be used to enhance selection and appraisal decisions.
The report suggested that such a policy should be coordinated with other
archival institutions. The task force reported that there were concerns within
the archival community that the Public Archives had acquired records of
regional interest without adequate consultations. The report recommended
that the Public Archives “adopt a comprehensive acquisition policy and con-
sult systematically with other archival institutions in Canada before acquiring
private collections.”17 The report went on to recommend that, unless the
records had a clear national significance, the Public Archives acquire copies
rather than the original documents in those cases where a provincial or local
repository consider them to be essential to their collection.18
On 18 February 1987, the Public Archives Program Evaluation Committee
met to review the findings and recommendations of the evaluation assessment
study.

15 See also Judi Cumming, “Beyond Intrinsic Value Towards the Development of Acquisition
Strategies in the Private Sector: The Experience of the Manuscript Division,” Archivaria 38
(Fall, 1994), p. 234.
16 Report of the Advisory Committee on Archives, September 1984 (Social Sciences and Human-
ities Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1985), p. 28.
17 Government of Canada, Economic Growth: Culture and Communication; A Study Team
Report to the Task Force on Program Review (Ottawa, 1985), p. 75.
18 Public Archives, Program Evaluation, Evaluation Assessment Report, Acquisitions Compo-
nent, Final Report (3 March 1987), pp. 1–2.
158 Archivaria 52

National Archives of Canada Act (1987)

New legislation was drafted for the Public Archives to give the Archives a
modern mandate which included the ability to provide a leadership role in
national planning on archival matters. When drafting the new legislation, the
federal government consulted with the provinces; this provided an unprece-
dented opportunity to discuss archival matters at the national level. The new
bill was given first reading in February 1986. The passage of the National
Archives of Canada Act on 25 March 1987 was a significant milestone in the
development of the Archives as a national institution. The Act greatly
enhanced the acquisition mandate of the National Archives and recognized its
leadership role within the Canadian archival community.
In March 1988, the National Archivist approved the document, Acquisition
Policy, which was the first formal acquisition policy of the National
Archives.19 The document stated the acquisition policy of the National
Archives in the context of its legislated mandate and also took into consider-
ation a number of recommendations and suggestions included in the various
studies and reports issued in the previous years. The acquisition policy was to
develop a broad and comprehensive collection by acquiring records of
national significance in a planned and integrated manner, according to prede-
termined appraisal criteria. The legislative framework was the National
Archives of Canada Act (1987) which stated that “the objects and functions of
the National Archives of Canada are to conserve private and public records of
national significance and facilitate access thereto....” The document also pro-
vided a statement on national significance:

Records of national significance are those which document the Canadian experience.
They record the efforts and experiences of individuals, groups, institutions, corporate
bodies, and other organizations which have become nationally or internationally recog-
nized. They also document the physical environment in Canada, as well as events and
trends (cultural, political, economic, social, demographic, scientific, and religious)
having a broad, national scope. They also reveal, in a notable way, typically Canadian
experiences. Records of national significance include those whose rarity or importance
allows them to be considered as national treasures.20

This statement was inclusive rather than exclusive and was in keeping with the
traditional National Archives “total archives” policy.
The Act provided an opportunity and a requirement to define the acquisition
mandate. There was pressure from higher management to produce acquisition

19 National Archives of Canada, Acquisition Policy, approved by the National Archivist, 8 March
1988. After 1987, the term “National Archives of Canada” is used.
20 Ibid., section 4.2., “National Significance.”
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 159

policy and procedures which could be easily and simply administered within
the new mandate. One new approach for the acquisition of private records of
national significance was to focus on the department’s mandate to conserve
records rather than to acquire records. This meant that the National Archives
could fulfil its mandate without actually acquiring records. Although the Act
stated that the National Archives had the responsibility to “conserve private
and public records of national significance,” the National Archives recognized
that other archival repositories outside the federal government acquired pri-
vate records of significance to the country as a whole. There were a few previ-
ous examples of some co-operative efforts with archival institutions across
Canada to ensure the preservation of specific fonds. In addition, the mandate
had to take into consideration that there were significant changes in the Cana-
dian archival universe, such as the creation of a Canadian archives system and
the establishment of a Canadian Council of Archives. The new legislation
indicated that the Archives was to support archival activities that took these
changes into consideration. The Act obliged the Archives to concentrate on
issues relating to future acquisition programmes and activities. The emphasis
was therefore more on the analysis of the Canadian arch- ival community
and the archival universe and less on past experiences and practices.
At the National Archives, the new Act generated a series of task forces,
working groups, strategy committees, and study and focus groups relating to
the acquisition function of the National Archives. These working groups were
established at all levels from the department, branch, division, and section.
Membership in these groups varied, volunteers were sought to draft policy
statements, groups were formed and reformed. Almost every archivist in the
Manuscript Division took part in this exercise. These activities were also moti-
vated by the need for the National Archives to rationalize its acquisition prac-
tices due to a growing shortage of suitable archival storage space and
decreased human resources as a result of downsizing. In the Manuscript Divi-
sion, there was growing pressure from higher management to define the
boundaries of its acquisition activity and establish a strategy outlining how the
division would contribute to the preservation of textual records of national sig-
nificance within those limits.21
In January 1988, the Program Evaluation and Research Policy Branch pro-
duced the report Acquisition Evaluation Study, Final Report, Volume 1.22
The report included a section on national significance and noted that, although
the National Archives characterized its acquisition mandate by this criterion,
there was a difficulty in defining this term to the satisfaction of the archival

21 For a discussion on developments in the Manuscript Division, see also Judi Cumming,
“Beyond Intrinsic Value.”
22 National Archives of Canada, Program Evaluation and Research Policy Branch, Acquisition
Evaluation Study, Final Report, Volume 1 (January 1988), pp. 19–20.
160 Archivaria 52

community. As an example, the report included a statement that, according to

a study management group and a focus group, records of national significance
had the following features: the records document the Canadian experience;
record the efforts and experiences of the federal government; record the efforts
and experiences of individuals, groups, corporate bodies, and other organiza-
tions which have become nationally or internationally recognized; and record
the physical environment, events, and historic trends (cultural, political, eco-
nomic social, scientific, and religious) which transcend provincial boundaries.
The report noted that during interviews archivists were asked to provide their
definitions of national significance and the replies ranged from a very specific
focus on federal government records to very broad concepts which included
almost anything. One of the recommendations of this report was that the
National Archives develop a departmental acquisition strategy.
Several initiatives were undertaken, including the establishment of acquisi-
tion review committees in divisions with an acquisition mandate. In the Manu-
script Division, the acquisition review function was given to the Manuscript
Division Advisory Committee. This committee worked well sometimes, but at
other times its work and recommendations were not seen as timely. Moreover,
some archivists viewed the work of the advisory committee as diminishing
their own role in acquisitions, particularly where an archivist was responsible
for a specific acquisitions programme. The archivists in the division tended to
protect their areas of responsibility from what they perceived was outside
interference. Since membership on this committee changed on a regular basis,
its role was criticized by other archivists for lack of continuity and lack of suf-
ficient knowledge in specific custodial areas.
The advisory committee functioned within the Manuscript Division until
the end of 1988 after a new director was appointed. A new Acquisition
Review Committee was established in December 1988 to coordinate acquisi-
tion activities within the Manuscript Division. The committee advised the
director on acquisitions matters including the decision-making process, the
standardization of the whole acquisition process, and the evaluation of acqui-
sition proposals of new and additional archival material. New procedures were
prepared which emphasized that new acquisitions had to be “justified.” The
exceptions were the “ministerial” records, which were specified in the
archives act of 1987, and archival material of twenty centimetres or less.
The Acquisition Strategy Task Force, which was established in May 1988 in
the Historical Resources Branch, held a series of meetings in March 1989 to
discuss strategic issues and approaches. The task force confirmed that national
significance continued to be the major criterion in the acquisition of private
records. During the meetings various approaches were suggested to determine
what records of national significance should be collected by the National
Archives. It was suggested that the term “national significance” should be
used in the broader sense of the term and therefore may vary in its application
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 161

among the various divisions. There was a general agreement that not all
nationally significant records could be acquired by the National Archives and
that each division should develop broad categories or “levels” of national sig-
nificance pertinent to their own areas, which at the same time transcend media
and divisional lines.
In December 1989, the National Archives issued the report National
Archives of Canada Acquisition Strategy: A Development Plan, 1989–1993.
This acquisition strategy report provided information on the background and
context, issues and framework, and the implementation of an acquisition strat-
egy plan. In the appendices, the report listed the acquisition milestones, cur-
rent acquisition activities, and concluded with an action plan.
The report stated that “... The Manuscript Division is responsible for the
acquisition of nationally significant textual .... records created by individuals,
organizations and corporations in the private sector.... The Manuscript Divi-
sion has attempted to acquire a broad and representative archival collection
that reflects the richness and diversity of Canadian life.”23 Among the objec-
tives of divisional acquisition activity, the report included “.... the documenta-
tion of modern economic, social and cultural life.” In pursuit of this goal, the
division had acquired the records of representative Canadian businesses, of
national labour organizations, of ethnocultural organizations and community
leaders, of women’s, children’s, recreational, and social welfare organizations,
and of inter-denominational religious groups. The division also attempted to
document the complex relationships between various branches of the arts and
Canadian society as a whole.24 The report confirmed the existing acquisition
mandate of the Manuscript Division in the various areas and programmes and
the general concept of total archives.
Referring to the 1987 National Archives of Canada Act, the report stated
that the custodial responsibility for nationally significant private records was
shared between the National Archives and other institutions. It may be inter-
preted that the concept of total archives was extended to include other archival
repositories across Canada. The report concluded that “...It is therefore
important that the Manuscript Division determine which records of national
significance it intends to acquire and that its archivists develop working rela-
tionships with colleagues active in similar fields across Canada.”25 Also, the
Archives ceased to acquire certain types of records which no longer met the
acquisition criteria, such as genealogies and family histories, cemetery record-
ings, and parish registers. The National Archives had by then withdrawn from
the acquisition of local and provincial records. National significance was

23 National Archives of Canada, Acquisition Strategy: A Development Plan, 1989–1993

(December 1989), p. 82.
24 Ibid., p. 83.
25 Ibid., p. 84.
162 Archivaria 52

therefore defined in negative terms, that is, what the National Archives did not
seek to acquire. The report also underlined that acquisition activities at the
National Archives were limited by resource restraints relating to accommoda-
tion, finances, and personnel.
The report included the following recommendation: redefine national sig-
nificance, based on strategic acquisition research and the identification of stra-
tegic acquisition targets. In the action plan, the Office of the Director General
was expected to produce this definition by March 1993. Another recommen-
dation stated that “...In co-operation with members of the Canadian archival
system, develop methodologies for the resolution of acquisition conflicts and
identify areas requiring shared responsibilities.”26
In the Manuscript Division, the Acquisition Review Committee was suc-
ceeded in March 1989 by the Acquisition Strategy Committee. This commit-
tee discussed several acquisition-related issues, and national significance was
discussed at one meeting. The committee suggested a number of categories
which might be included in this definition: national organizations and their
executives; organizations active in more than one province; national umbrella
organizations; technological and scientific developments; cultural activities at
the national level. The committee confirmed some of the earlier approaches
and identified records which were considered to be outside the limits of the
acquisition policy: local and provincial government records, denominational
records available in Canada, family genealogies or histories, autographs, pri-
vate records of local, regional, or provincial significance, collections which
were entirely in print. Questions continued to be raised about the relationship
between national significance and regionalism in Canadian history.27
The Acquisitions Strategy Committee was headed by a chairperson and
included a representative from each section. This approach was seen as essen-
tially a temporary step to establish acquisition policies and procedures for the
Manuscript Division and to encourage division-wide standards regarding
acquisition. The role of the committee and the acquisition procedures were to
be evaluated after the development of a departmental acquisition strategy and
division action plans. In accordance with its mandate, the committee produced
acquisition policies and procedures. To facilitate its work and accumulate a
database on acquisitions, the procedures included an acquisition proposal
form which underwent a number of revisions as work progressed. The pro-
posal form was based on a similar form used by the Archives nationales du

26 Ibid., p. 102.
27 In an attempt to define national significance, the archivists debated the evolution of Canadian
history as identified by specific historical periods and geographical areas and what kinds of
archival material could be considered as significant from the perspective of these various peri-
ods of Canadian history, and also from the perspectives of early colonial and post-colonial
administrations of what is now Canada.
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 163

Québec. Archivists were requested to submit acquisition proposals and have

them approved before archival material was donated to the National Archives.
In addition to the usual information regarding proposed acquisitions, archi-
vists were requested to include a justification for each particular acquisition.
The committee provided opportunities to discuss and review on a regular basis
issues relating to acquisition policy and procedures with the working-level
archivists in the division.
An important section within the new National Archives of Canada Act was
section 4(3) which states: “Subject to the terms and conditions under which
records have been acquired or obtained, the Archivist may, in consultation
with the Advisory Board referred to in section 9, destroy or dispose of any
record under the control of the Archivist where retention of the record is no
longer deemed necessary.” This section authorized the National Archivist to
deaccession archival records from the control and custody of the National
Archives and their transfer to another archival repository or cultural institu-
tion. Requests to surrender archival holdings could now be made by other
archival or cultural agencies. By 1991, policy and procedure papers were pre-
pared to provide archivists with guidelines regarding requests to deaccession
material. The procedures required that the deaccession proposals were submit-
ted to the acquisition committee for review. A number of fonds which were of
local and regional significance were immediately identified as material which
may be deaccessioned. Through section 4(3) the definition of national signifi-
cance could further be elaborated, but in negative terms, by the process of
removing archival material not required at the National Archives.
At the level of the branch, a Private Sector Acquisitions Strategy Working
Group was formed in July 1991 to recommend an acquisitions research strat-
egy for private sector records. It included representatives from those divisions
with acquisition programmes in the private sector. Some of the research issues
raised by this working group dealt with national significance. What types of
private fonds of national significance does the National Archives wish to
acquire exclusively? What types of private fonds of national significance do
other archives across the country wish to acquire exclusively? How can the
National Archives and other institutions that collect in the private sector
resolve issues of jurisdictional conflict and collaborate to use limited
resources to preserve records of national significance?
The discussions with the working group obliged the members to review and
revise their fundamental concepts relating to acquisition and the archival uni-
verse in general. Archival literature from various archival journals was
researched, circulated, and studied. Archivists from the media custodial areas
who dealt with item-level acquisitions now had to discuss acquisition issues
with archivists who acquired fonds with several hundred metres of textual
archival material. The discussions on acquisition strategy which should have
progressed from the general to the particular often exploded the parameters
164 Archivaria 52

beyond the recognizable archival universe to include wide-ranging discussions

on Canadian history, society, and culture. Some meetings took on the atmo-
sphere of intense graduate seminars, and debates were punctuated with refer-
ences to Marshall McLuhan, Michel Foucault, and others. Most of the
archivists who took part in these discussions were also researchers in their
own fields and tended to view the archival problems from several perspectives
as archivists, historians, and general researchers. As students of history, they
were also aware that any formulation of definitions and categories within an
administrative environment was basically artificial and temporary. Proposals
and recommendations were decided by consensus, but in several cases this
was not possible.
During discussions within the branch, a general consensus emerged that a
concept such as national significance defied an absolute definition. It was
hoped that time, experience, and precedent would lead to a more precise state-
ment. The best solution that could be suggested at that time was the develop-
ment of a planned approach. It was suggested that the emphasis should be on
the process rather than the product. However, pressure to produce a working
definition continued from various sources outside the National Archives.
The Private Sector Acquisitions Strategy Working Group submitted a draft
of a discussion report in November 1992 entitled Private Sector Acquisition
Strategy to the Director General, Historical Resources Branch. The report sug-
gested a number of approaches to the question of identifying archival material
of national significance.28 A series of underlying principles and definitions
were identified in order to properly articulate an acquisition strategy for pri-
vate records. The report discussed a number of issues including the continuum
between public and private records, the interrelationships between the federal
government and civil society in Canada and the larger question of “gover-
nance.” All these factors were suggested for inclusion in any acquisition strat-
egy and goals prepared by archivists. These recommendations were submitted
to higher management but the reactions were mixed. Most senior administra-
tors began their careers in the era of total archives and still subscribed to this
concept. They hesitated at any attempt to update or modify this concept. Any
plan to define national significance was perceived by some administrators as
an effort to limit or redefine the concept of total archives. They were also con-
cerned about the need to implement any new policy which might create poten-
tial administrative problems. This tension between the administrative
requirements of a federal government department and the principles of a cul-
tural institution (in this case, an archival institution) remains a perennial prob-
lem which is common to other cultural departments and agencies.
In the Manuscript Division, a series of policy and procedure papers were
produced in 1991 by the Acquisition Committee outlining the acquisition pro-

28 Private Sector Acquisition Strategy (Discussion Draft, October 1992).

 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 165

cess. These papers have, with some modifications, remained in effect until the
present day. The Acquisition Committee recognized that the Manuscript Divi-
sion shared the responsibility of preserving private textual and electronic
records of national significance with their creators and with other public and
private archival institutions for all periods of Canadian history. The committee
identified several types of nationally significant records as the targets of its
acquisition programmes. In the social and cultural areas, these included indi-
viduals or organizations representing major cultural trends or artistic excel-
lence; individuals or organizations involved in major social movements and
activities; national ethnocultural organizations and community leaders; inter-
denominational records, clergy, and organizations involved in missionary
work.
In the Multicultural Archives Program, an internal report entitled Multicul-
tural Archives Programme, Acquisition Strategy, Theory and Practice was
prepared in 1991–92 and discussed among the archivists. This report empha-
sized the need to begin any acquisition strategy with the study of the history of
acquisition in the area of Canadian ethnocultural groups at the National
Archives and the identification of the “boundaries” of the archival universe of
the particular ethnocultural group. As part of the study of the history of the
group in Canada, other factors were taken into consideration: the definition of
the ethnocultural group, relations with the country of origin, and relations with
the federal government. The historiography of ethnocultural groups was out-
lined in periods or themes. A plan to implement this acquisition strategy was
also suggested. Archivists produced acquisition reports on specific ethnocul-
tural groups29 and these reports concluded by identifying specific acquisition
targets among community leaders and national organizations. In the search for
acquisition targets, archivists were reminded to identify possible donors from
various segments or “fragments” of each community so that several interpreta-
tions and perspectives were available to researchers when researching and
writing the history of particular groups. This was especially true for ethnocul-
tural groups which were divided according to their political orientation. This
was based on the perception that the experience of ethnocultural groups and
the encompassing Canadian society produced many “histories” rather than
one “History.”
In the area of social issues, archivists contacted national organizations
whose activities and records provided opposing and alternate interpretations at
the national level on abortion, gun control, smoking, and other contemporary
and controversial issues. In addition, acquisition strategy reports were prepared

29 For example, see edited versions by Dr. Arthur Grenke, “Archival Collections on Hungarian
Canadians at the National Archives of Canada,” Hungarian Studies Review XVII, no. 1
(Spring 1990); “The Archival Record of German-Language Groups in Canada: A Survey,”
Archivaria 35 (Spring 1993).
166 Archivaria 52

on Amérindiens du Canada (1992), Private Sector Acquisition: Social Sector

(1992) and also an Acquisition Strategy for Canadian Women’s Movement
Archives (1999), which have shaped acquisitions in these areas.30 The goal was
to encourage each section and area of acquisition to prepare and update reports
linking the general acquisition goals of the National Archives and of the Manu-
script Division to their specific area of acquisition. The acquisition process
would proceed from general to particular guidelines.31 The guidelines would
be followed by selection criteria. With the application of strategic and tactical
guidelines, acquisition and selection criteria, and administrative requirements
which acted as filters or screens in this process, the nationally significant mate-
rial would be identified and targeted for acquisition.
During discussions with archivists in the Montreal region in March 1993, it
was suggested that the process to define an acquisition strategy and material of
national significance could be accomplished through consensus, that is, by
working with archivists across Canada. However, some archivists from
regional and local archives replied that they were waiting for the National
Archives to arrive at a definition and then they would define their own policies
accordingly. This task therefore remained with the National Archives.32
In October 1993, the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board
issued the document, Discussion Paper and Draft Guidelines Concerning
Outstanding Significance and National Importance. This document made an
important contribution to the general discussion on the definition of national
significance and to furthering a consensus among federal government depart-
ments and agencies about some of the basic components of this definition.
Although the focus of the discussion was on cultural “objects,” these guide-
lines were generally applicable to archival documents. The following guide-
lines were developed during the meetings on national significance33: regional,
provincial, or national factors; pertinence; significance of the maker; signifi-
cance of the object; documentary or research value; authenticity; aesthetic
qualities; condition; rarity; “Canadian content”; association with other objects
(collections vs. assemblages); medium; fair market as a determinant of
national significance.34

30 Michelle Guitard, Amérindiens du Canada (1992) and Christine Barrass, Acquisition Strategy
for Canadian Women’s Movement Archives (1999). These and other acquisition reports are
internal working documents.
31 As an example of this approach, see the article by James Lambert and Louis Coté, “Les outils
de travail en archivistique: la politique d’acquisition : pourquoi, comment, critères et exem-
ples,” Archives 23, no. 3 (Winter 1992).
32 Notes for a Panel Discussion on Acquisition Strategy and National Significance at the
National Archives of Canada; Acquisition, Séminaire organisé par le Groupe d’archivistes de
la région de Montréal (GARM), 11 et 12 mars 1993, Université Concordia, Montréal.
33 Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board, Discussion Paper and Draft Guidelines
Concerning Outstanding Significance and National Importance (October 1993).
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 167

In September 1994, the National Archives prepared a document, National

Archives of Canada, Acquisition Strategy Framework, Private Sector.35 This
document confirmed the “Themes of national significance,” included an
appraisal methodology, and also confirmed the definition of national signifi-
cance found in the report, Acquisition Policy (1988). The document provided a
framework as a means of identifying records creators which might commonly
be expected to produce records of national significance. At this stage in the
acquisition process, an attempt was made to identify the records creators and
the records creation process rather than the records themselves and the infor-
mation which the documents may contain. However, it was the value of the
records themselves which ultimately determined whether or not they were to be
acquired.36
The framework listed themes of national significance which should be doc-
umented by the National Archives. It was suggested that all potential acquisi-
tions should relate to one or more of these themes. The relative priority for
acquisition should be determined by the degree of relevance or quality of the
potential acquisition in relation to these themes. A series of questions were
included to assist the archivists to determine the national significance of archi-
val material. This framework was integrated into acquisition procedures and
archivists were requested to consult the framework when completing the
acquisition proposal form (see Appendix A).
With the publication of the report, National Archives of Canada, Acquisi-
tion Strategy Framework, Private Sector, the role of the Acquisition Commit-
tee in the Manuscript Division also changed by September 1994. The work of
the Acquisition Committee was reviewed and the advantages and disadvan-
tages of maintaining the committee were discussed. By then, archivists were
generally familiar with the policy and procedures for acquiring archival mate-
rial and viewed the committee more as an impediment than as an aid in acquir-
ing material. The committee was disbanded and some of the procedures were
changed. The acquisition proposal form was retained and the archivists dealt
directly with their section chiefs and the director when required. The Manu-
script Division was reorganized and the various multicultural, religion, social,

34 See Parks Canada, Directory of Designations of National Historic Significance Commemor-

ating Canada’s History, March 2000. Parks Canada also produced some policy docu-
ments which attempted to determine national significance. See the document, Parks Canada
Guiding Principles and Operational Policies, particularly 2.0: Determining National Historic
Significance, available at: <http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/library/PC_Guiding_Principles/
Park 88_e.htm>. The archivists regularly examined the lists of recipients of the Order of
Canada and other national awards to identify Canadians of national significance.
35 National Archives of Canada, National Archives of Canada, Acquisition Strategy Framework,
Private Sector (27 September 1994).
36 In 1995, the Canadian Council of Archives published a report, Building a National Acquisi-
tion Strategy: Guidelines for Acquisition Planning to encourage a common approach or pro-
cess in preparing acquisition plans and procedures among member institutions.
168 Archivaria 52

and culture-related programme were fully integrated into the Social and Cul-
tural Archives Section.
On 11 December 1995, the National Archives issued the report, National
Archives of Canada, Private Sector Acquisition: Orientation 1995–2000
which was based on the National Archives Acquisition Strategy Framework –
Private Sector (1994).37 The report stated that “... The records of key organi-
zations and individuals who had a long-term and nationally significant impact
on Canada’s development must remain our focus.”38 Furthermore, “... records
of creators which are national in significance but regional in scope will gener-
ally not be acquired by the National Archives. Only in exceptional cases will
the national significance of the records to Canada clearly outweigh their
regional scope. Most records regional in scope but national in significance will
be redirected to other repositories.”39 The report included the statement from
Part III of the Estimates 1995–96 that “...The NA ... will withdraw completely
from future collecting of nationally significant private records in such fields as
architecture, business and religious archives, and MPs and Senators’ papers in
the expectation that other archives will acquire such fonds. Other private
acquisition programmes in such areas as graphic and multicultural records
will be reduced substantially....”40 This policy was developed in response to a
tightening of financial controls and the large backlog of private and public
records. As a result, the acquisition work of certain archivists in the Manu-
script Division was reorganized, in some cases reduced.41 This is an example
of how an acquisition policy could be temporarily affected by what may be
described as primarily administrative concerns.
Despite these changes due to federal government financial and administra-
tive policies, the National Archives maintained its traditional “vision” or “noble
dream.” In the document Strategic Approaches of the National Archives of Can-
ada, 1996–1999, National Archivist Jean-Pierre Wallot outlined his vision of
archives:

...Archives are evidence, testimonies and sources of information which document the
life of societies, make agencies and government transparent and accountable to their
constituents and thereby serve democracy, and substantiate collective and individual
rights. They become the ‘garden’, overflowing with the hopes, achievements and dif-

37 The Visual and Sound Archives Division issued the document, Acquisition Orientation/Docu-
ment sur l’orientation des acquisitions in October 1998 which outlined the division’s acquisi-
tion orientation and contributed to the departmental acquisition strategy.
38 National Archives of Canada, Private Sector Acquisition: Orientation 1995–2000, p. 3.
39 Ibid., p. 3.
40 National Archives of Canada, 1995–96 Estimates, “Part III Expenditure Plan,” p. 23.
41 However, the search for partners for joint archival acquisition projects has had mixed results.
These partnership initiatives are often the result of periods of financial restraint at the National
Archives which always seem to correspond with similar financial conditions in other archival
institutions across Canada.
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 169

ferences that foster our contemporaries’ vision of the world and their plans for the
future. This is particularly true in Canada, a country outstanding for its quality of life,
but also for its diversity, for the different time frames of its development and of its
regions, for the “limited identities” that have emerged from its history, and for its diffi-
cult traditions of tolerance, compromise and openness to the future. Canada is a coun-
try outstanding also for its relatively frequent and sometimes far-reaching self-
questioning.42

The search for a working definition of national significance also remained

as part of the vision. From time to time, pressure from senior management and
from outside the National Archives revived the need to provide an adequate
definition of national significance. More recently, the “English Report” rec-
ommended that “... The National Archives should review its acquisition policy
in light of the need to provide a focus for archival records of national signifi-
cance. A national policy should be the result of a partnership between the
National Archives and the Canadian Council of Archives.”43
On 31 March 2000, the National Archives issued the report, Private Sector
Acquisition: Orientation 2000–2005. This report revised and updated the
guidelines for acquisition which were earlier listed in the report, Private Sec-
tor Acquisition: Orientation 1995–2000. Some of the acquisition programmes
were revived. Regarding records of national and regional significance, the
report stated that “... Records of creators which are both of national and
regional significance must be carefully considered. Generally such records
will not be acquired by the National Archives except in the case of records
which are geographically based, that is, in those cases when the national sig-
nificance of the records to Canada clearly outweigh their regional scope. Most
records regional in scope but national in significance will continue to be
directed to other repositories.”44 Archivists were referred to the report Acqui-
sition Strategy Framework – Private Sector for a test for use when records
national in significance but regional in scope are considered for acquisition.
An exception was included which stated that “... there may be instances in
which the National Archives believes that it must act to protect historically
significant records important to Canada. In these exceptional circumstances,

42 National Archives of Canada, Strategic Approaches of the National Archives of Canada,

1996–1999 (Forward from the National Archivist, Dr. Jean-Pierre Wallot).
43 In March 1998, John English was commissioned by the Minister of Canadian Heritage to
report on the role of the National Library of Canada and the National Archives of Canada. His
report was released in July 1999. See Canadian Heritage, The Role of the National Archives of
Canada and the National Library of Canada, Report submitted to the Honourable Sheila
Copps by Dr. John English (1999), Recommendations: p. 3. This report is popularly known as
the “English Report.”
44 National Archives of Canada, Private Sector Acquisition: Orientation 2000–2005 (31 March
2000), p. 2.
170 Archivaria 52

the National Archives will take steps to acquire records in an area in which it
is not actively collecting or for which the resources to arrange, describe and
conserve these records are not readily available.”45
In June 2000, a new period in acquisition policies and procedures was intro-
duced when the Canadian Archives Branch underwent a fundamental reorga-
nization. The traditional division structure was eliminated and the designation
Manuscript Division disappeared. The constituent sections remained and the
section chiefs now reported to the director general of the Canadian Archives
Branch. The media and textual archives sections became part of the same
administrative unit.
Also, the introduction and implementation of the Rules for Archival De-
scription (RAD) and the Mikan system for accession, control, and retrieval at
the National Archives has obliged the various textual and media components
to work more closely as teams and approach the acquisition function in much
the same manner. The RAD and Mikan systems also oblige archivists to co-
operate in the development, sharing, and use of the same concepts and defini-
tions in regards to the acquisition of archival material. As similar new systems
are adopted and developed by archival institutions across Canada, a new archi-
val “language” can be created promoting a common approach to national
archival problems, terminology, and concepts.

Conclusion

In recent years, the National Archives’ acquisition objectives evolved along-

side changes in its administrative and cultural mission and objectives. These
changes have been influenced by decisions from parliament and cabinet,
prime ministerial and ministerial directives, Orders-in-Council, as well as
Treasury Board decisions, directives, and policies. The acquisition policies
and procedures were based on precedent, tradition, and each National Archi-
vist made his impact on policies and practices, often enlarging upon or refin-
ing existing mandates. By and large, the National Archives followed a broad
acquisition policy which was more inclusive than exclusive, and in the 1960s
and 1970s, this approach was described as the “total archives” concept.
Since the introduction of the National Archives of Canada Act in 1987, the
acquisition mandate has emphasized issues relating to future programmes and
activities. The emphasis has been, therefore, less on previous traditional prac-
tices and more on a better understanding of the Canadian archival universe.
The National Archives made a determined attempt to define a national acqui-
sitions policy. Since 1987, archivists have concentrated their efforts more on
creating the necessary structures and strategies to advance the planning of
acquisition activity, which was a necessary precondition to the establishment

45 Ibid., p. 4.
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 171

of national selection criteria. And this included a continuing search for an ade-
quate definition of national significance that was generally acceptable to the
Canadian archival community. By 1991, it was generally agreed within the
National Archives that an absolute definition of national significance was not
feasible at that time. The concept was perceived as evolving over time depend-
ing on the “national” or geographic composition of Canada and also on the
political evolution of Canada.46
At present, the archivists at the National Archives cannot refer to their spon-
sor, the Government of Canada, the National Archives of Canada Act, or even
the Canadian Constitution in the search for a generally acceptable definition of
national significance. Canadian history is not the result of revolutions, civil
wars, or major conflicts which radically directed or redirected social, eco-
nomic, and political life according to the winners’ instructions. There are no
government-approved definitions of national significance which could be
applied to all spheres of social and cultural life, including acquisition of archi-
val material. If we examine the larger implications of this approach, Canadian
citizens are able to support different interest groups and political movements
and debate, support or dissent from “national” concepts such as national signif-
icance because there is a reluctance to provide an official definition. The fact
that there is no entrenched idea of national “goals” and national significance is
what enables citizens to develop and maintain, in the private sector, particular
communities and ethnocultural associations representing particular cultural
and historical traditions. It may even be suggested that it is the lack of
entrenched definitions of national significance that assists to preserve the polit-
ical freedoms of the public sphere and the social freedoms of the private
sphere.47 In summary, what is of national significance is choice itself, that is,
freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is only possible when there are minimal
restrictions on access by citizens (researchers) to knowledge, information, and
public institutions.
This perspective on the development of an informed citizenry was first out-
lined in the petition for an archival institution by the Quebec Literary and His-
torical Society in 1871. Canada was a new political entity in 1867 and the waves
of nationalism and liberalism which swept Western Europe in the 1840s and
1850s certainly had an influence in shaping the emerging federal Canadian
institutions. It was a period when new social and political ideas challenged tra-

46 For example, the recent establishment of Nunavut as a territorial government along with the
Nunavut Archives requires a re-configuration of the Canadian archival universe. Other future
political and administrative changes may also require a re-evaluation of what is “national” and
therefore of national significance.
47 This reference is based on a liberal interpretation of the Canadian “good life” as outlined in
the book by Janet Ajzenstat and Peter J. Smith, eds., Canada’s Origins, Liberal, Tory or
Republican? (Ottawa, 1995), p. 273.
172 Archivaria 52

ditional institutions and established authorities.48 According to historians of

Canadian archives, what is now the National Archives of Canada was estab-
lished in 1872 as a result of a strong cultural lobby organized by the Literary and
Historical Society of Quebec.49 A petition from Henry Miles, a member of the
society in 1871 only four years after Confederation, touched on a continuing
Canadian theme:

That, considering the divers [sic] origins, nationalities, religious creeds, and classes of
persons represented in Canadian Society, the conflicting nature of the evidence prof-
fered by authors in presenting the most important points and phases of our past local
history, as well as the greater need which a rapidly progressive people have to base the
lessons derivable from their history upon facts duly authenticated in place of mere
hearsay or statements only partially correct ... the Petitioners desire to express their
conviction that the best interests of Society in this country would be consulted by
establishing a system, with respect to Canadian Archives, correspondent with those
above adverted to in relation to Great Britain, France and the United States.50

By providing access to archival material for the study of the collective past,
Canadians were encouraged “... to base the lessons derivable from their his-
tory upon facts duly authenticated.” The role of the Archives was perceived as
contributing to the building of an educated electorate, a common historical
consciousness, and, therefore, as an important nation-building institution.
The “noble dream” of this petition is as valid today as it was in 1871.

48 Ibid. More recently, the debate is continued in the article by Ian McKay, “The Liberal Order
Framework: A Prospectus for a Reconnaissance of Canadian History,” Canadian Historical
Review 81, no. 4 (December 2000).
49 Danielle Lacasse and Antonio Lechasseur, “The National Archives of Canada 1872–1997,”
The Canadian Historical Association, Historical Booklet No. 58 (Ottawa, 1997); also Ian E.
Wilson, “Shortt and Doughty: The Cultural Role of the Public Archives of Canada 1904 to
1935” (M.A. Thesis, Queen’s University, 1973) and also, “A Noble Dream: The Origins of the
Public Archives of Canada,”Archivaria 15 (Winter 1982–83).
50 Quoted on page 20 in the report, Consultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian
Archives, Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Ottawa,
1980); See also National Archives of Canada, RG2, Series 3, vol. 5, Privy Council Dormants,
28 February 1872.
 The Evolution and Development of Acquisition Strategies 173

Appendix A

Acquisition Strategy Framework: Summary

The following themes and questions are based on the document, Acquisition
Strategy Framework, Private Sector (27 September 1994), and archivists are
encouraged to consult the entire document when preparing an Acquisition
Proposal. When applicable, the following themes and questions are intended
to assist the archivist in the identification and selection of archival material
that is of national significance as possible acquisitions.
The following broad themes are the focus of collecting activity by the
National Archives:

1. The natural-physical, social, cultural, political, economic, and scientific

development of Canada as a country;
2. The evolution of a sense of Canadian national identity (including French-
English relations; Canadian-American relations; native-newcomer rela-
tions; multiculturalism and interaction with cultures of origin; relations
with mother countries);
3. Issues, events, and experiences typical or representative of life in Canada
(rituals/rites of passage, everyday life shared by Canadians and enduring
over time, in all fields of life from art and culture to the maintenance and
promotion of societal values and issues of gender);
4. Canadian society as it is represented and defined in all its integral parts
(regionality);
5. National and international images of Canada, its land, and its people;
6. The interaction between the Canadian federal government and the people;
7. The development and maintenance of national standards (such as human
rights, health care, justice);
8. The sphere of national public life, including politics;
9. The Canadian contribution to world development and international affairs;
10. National treasures.

The following questions help identify fonds or records which should be

acquired and set relative priorities:

1. Is the creator, fonds or collection, theme or subject of national signifi-

cance?
2. What was the impact of the records creator on the social environment and
on the political, social, economic, technological, intellectual, or cultural
aspects of that environment?
3. What effect does the scope of activity of the records creator or the records
174 Archivaria 52

have on the impact and the national significance of the records creator or
the records?
4. What is the context of records creation and use?
5. Is the contemporary or the historical perspective appropriate for the
acquisition effort at hand?
6. What is the relationship of the records of the creator to the actual or pro-
jected National Archives public record holdings?
7. What is the precedent for National Archives collecting in the subject area,
theme, or topic under examination?
8. In which repository should these records be preserved?
9. In what media form or forms is the record best acquired in order to ensure
its preservation and use?