Archival Reappraisal:

The Immigration Case Files

by SHEILA POWELL*

The issue of archival reappraisal has primarily been considered in relation to issues of
archival custody and research use of specific archival fonds. The American archivist
Leonard Rapport, who has pioneered thinking in the field of reappraisal, advocates the
reappraisal and deaccessioning of fonds which pose custodial problems to archives
because of their extent and infrequent use by researchers.' Rapport's position has been
greeted with concern by many American archivists, who fear that reappraisal according
to Rapport's criteria would lead to the destruction of records simply because few
researchers have used them. These archivists recognize that the level of research use of
a fonds is affected by many factors, only one of which may be the fonds' research
value.2
Reappraisal, however, does have a place in archival theory, but not for the reasons
put forward by Leonard Rapport. While the bulk of modern records and storage
problems in our archives are inescapable facts of archival life in the 1990s, reappraisal
is, in the first instance, an appraisal issue, not a custodial or reference issue. Most
archivists are aware that no appraisal decision is perfect. Reappraisal is necessary,
therefore, when the original appraisal decision has been discovered to be incorrect or
incomplete. Reappraisal of an archival fonds, or a body of records scheduled for
archival acquisition, should also be considered when the archives becomes aware of the
existence of records which constitute a more valuable source of documentation for the
same activities documented by the accessioned or scheduled records. It must be
recognized that inappropriate appraisal decisions, and decisions to acquire records when
more valuable records exist, are frequently made due to circumstances beyond the
control of individual archivists and even of large archival repositories, and that
provision for reappraisal should be made in such cases in order to preserve the highest-
quality archival record possible.
My interest in archival reappraisal arose as a result of my experiences as the archivist
responsible for the federal government immigration records held by the Government
Archives Division of the National Archives of Canada. During my tenure as Immi-
gration archivist from April 1988 to April 1991, it became increasingly apparent to me
and my supervisors that the 1987 appraisal decision to acquire large numbers of

0 All rights reserved: Archivariu 33 (Winter 1991-92)

 REAPPRAISAL 105

Immigration case files on a continuing basis needed to be reviewed in light of the

enormous numbers of files of questionable archival value being transferred to the
National Archives. Further appraisal activity in other important active Immigration
records confirmed our suspicions that we were taking in the "wrong stuff." As a result, I
was encouraged by my supervisors to re-examine the 1987 decision, making use of my
expanding knowledge of the current information holdings of the Immigration
programme and taking advantage of recent developments in archival appraisal theory.
My research on the Immigration case files has led m e to draw the following
conclusions about archival reappraisal. Archival appraisal decisions are often
influenced by issues that have little to do with archival value, and which can result in
incomplete appraisal decisions. It is important, therefore, to rethink appraisal decisions
whenever it becomes apparent that the wrong records have been acquired, or that
records exist which are of greater archival value than those which have already been
acquired or scheduled for acquisition. Reappraisal should only be contemplated when
the conditions which contributed to the flaws in the original appraisal decision either no
longer exist or can be remedied. In effect, a reappraisal should take the form of a new
appraisal, using knowledge gained since the original appraisal and using appraisal
criteria based on sound appraisal theory. This case study will outline the history of the
most recent appraisal of Immigration case files at the National Archives, suggest an
approach to their reappraisal, and present the preliminary reappraisal decisions.
Immigration case files are a voluminous, decentralized series of paper files created by
the Immigration component of the federal Canada Employment and Immigration
Commission. The Immigration programme is responsible for deciding who will enter
Canada as a permanent resident, for controlling the entry into Canada of successful
candidates for permanent residence, and for assisting in the adaptation of immigrants to
Canadian life.' In the course of fulfilling its mandate, Immigration creates policy files,
operational subject files on all matters relating to the entry of immigrants, automated
databases which capture key information on each immigrant, and the paper case files,
which document each immigrant case, as well as related microform records, such as the
microfilmed immigrant visas, which constitute the legal record of an immigrant's entry
into Canada. These files are created, in varying degrees, at national headquarters,
regional offices, over 100 local Canada Immigration Centres, and scores of overseas
posts.
For the past forty years, case files have been the backbone of Canada's Immigration
operations. At least one case file is opened for each successful immigrant family or
single adult immigrant. In 1989, 186,788 immigrant visas were issued, and 190,342
immigrants came to Canada, which will offer an idea of the number of files created
each year.4 The majority of these files are created and maintained in over 100 Canada
Immigration Centres across the country. In addition, a file on each applicant for
permanent residence is opened in the overseas Immigration office which processed the
application, while files on special or controversial cases are also opened at Immigration
National Headquarters. Files often pass through various levels of the Immigration
system as an immigrant or refugee faces, for example, an adjudication hearing, a
deportation action or an appeal. At each level, additional documentation may be added
to a case file, the bulk of such documentation consisting of standard forms which often
serve as computer input forms. Each individual or family applying to immigrate must
complete an application for permanent residence and provide proof of education, and
information on job skills, health and criminal activity, as required by Immigration
officials. In Canada, sponsoring relatives must also fill out a standard form at their local
Immigration Centre. Once the immigrant arrives in Canada. further standardized
documentation will be added to the lmmigration Centre file. Internal Immigration
memoranda, correspondence with applicants and sponsors, and the odd rough note may
also be found in the Canadian and overseas files.
The most recent archival appraisal of Immigration case files took place in 1986 and
1987, as part of the approval process of a retention and disposal schedule which was
submitted in 1986. At that time, the retention and disposal of records created by the
federal government was governed by Chapter 460 of the Treasury Board's
Administrative Policy Manual, which required that federal departments create retention
and disposal schedules for their records, and that these schedules be approved by the
then Dominion Archivist. As with all the other schedules reviewed by the then Public
Archives of Canada, the Immigration case files were appraised by an archivist, who
specified which records were of potential archival and historical value and had to be
transferred to the Public Archives on the expiry of the retention periods. In this case, the
archival appraisal had required the transfer of all files opened prior to 1969; all files
classified as "secret" or higher; all files concerning historic, controversial or precedent-
setting cases; all files measuring more than 2.5 cm in thickness, or more than one
volume in extent; all files from special file series created for immigrants of particular
nationalities or races; and a sample of almost all the other case files created at both
overseas and Canadian immigration offices.
As Immigration started to apply the schedule, they realized that more files were being
received than had been anticipated, and that the files were generally of questionable
archival value. Between February 1989 and November 1990, when I started
investigating the problem, fifty-seven metres of Immigration case files and 3 13 reels of
microfilmed case files were received in twenty-two separate accessions. In addition,
there were also case files still being housed in six Federal Records Centres across the
country, which had not yet been accessioned. Most of the accessioned files had come
from only a handful of the sixty-five Immigration posts abroad which will eventually
send files to the National Archives. It became obvious that a reappraisal of the case files
was necessary.
The recognition of a role for reappraisal is not new to the Government Archives
Division. All records schedules and their archival limitations are supposed to be
reviewed on a five-year cycle, and amendments to archival limitations are fairly
common. The 1986-87 Immigration case file appraisal was, in effect, a rethinking of
appraisal decisions that had been taken on previous Immigration case file schedules. As
well, the need for a reappraisal had been taken for granted before a single file was
received, due to the unique problems faced during the 1986-87 appraisal, including the
impact of the federal Privacy Act on records scheduling and archival appraisal; the need
for a detailed records analysis of the Immigration case file system before an appraisal
could be conducted; and the hearings of the Deschenes Commission on Nazi War
Criminals. I shall examine these problems one by one.
The Privacy Act requires that each federal agency "dispose of personal information
under the control of the institution in accordance with the regulations and in accordance
 REAPPRAISAL 107

with any directives or guidelines issued by the designated minister in relation to the
disposal of that information."' When the P r i w c y Act came into effect in 1983,
departments and agencies subject to the Act began to submit retention and disposal
schedules for personal information systems such as the Immigration case files, for the
approval of the Dominion Archivist.
The Public Archives was swamped with these schedules, each of which required
archival appraisal. The situation was ripe for appraisal problems, particularly since, by
the early 1980s, many archivists had been sufficiently influenced by developments in
social history to be aware of the research potential of case files and automated data on
"ordinary" p e ~ p l e Archivists
.~ at the Public Archives who had to appraise great
quantities of case files began to take appraisal decisions which resulted in the transfer of
bulky case file series to the Archives, especially as there were no formal policies or
procedures in place for sampling. Many of these appraisal decisions, however, were
made without a great deal of knowledge of the other records created by federal
government departments, in particular policy and subject files. It was not then Public
Archives policy to require departments to schedule their policy or subject files before
case files. In effect, due to the emphasis on scheduling case files, and a lack of
information on other records holdings, the Public Archives often ended up documenting
departments first through their case files.
An added complication was that, until late 1986, archivists responsible for the
appraisal of textual and micrographic records worked separately from those responsible
for the appraisal of automated information. Departments also submitted separate
schedules for different record media. Archivists did attempt to cooperate across media
lines, but it was inevitable that many appraisals were made without adequate knowledge
of the complete context of information creation within departments. Archivists could
decide, for example, to acquire a large series of paper case files without being aware of
the potential value of a related automated system, or that an automated system may in
large part have duplicated the paper records.
Yet another problem was the means by which the Public Archives handled the
approval process for retention and disposal schedules. The Records Management
Branch of the Public Archives was responsible for overseeing the efficient management
of information within the federal government, and was supposed to act as controller
when departments submitted schedules. Its records analysts were to verify that
schedules were prepared according to the required format, that retention periods were
appropriate, and that schedules covered all the records they were supposed to cover.
Analysts were also to provide information and advice to archivists on records
management issues, while archivists proceeded with archival appraisal. Unfortunately,
due to limited resources and a large increase in scheduling activity, archivists often had
to perform complex records analyses as well as archival appraisals: the two halves of
the process rarely met in the middle.
The entire matter was complicated by the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals,
commonly known as the Deschhes Commission, the public hearings of which dragged
the Public Archives and the records retention and disposal practices of the Immigration
programme into the limelight and had a serious impact on the decisions taken by
Bennett McCardle, the archivist charged with the task of appraising the case files. The
Commission, which was established in February 1985 and reported to Parliament in
108 ARCHIVARIA 33

March 1987, raised a number of questions about how the federal government disposed
of its records. Unfounded accusations by former Solicitor-General Robert Kaplan and
by Sol Littman of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies that the Public
Archives had deliberately destroyed the case files of Nazi immigrants to Canada led the
Commission to investigate records creation and records management in the Immigration
programme, as well as the role of the Public Archives in the destruction of Immigration
case files dating from the late 1940s, and the records scheduling and disposal process
generally .'
Bennett McCardle conducted her archival appraisal during the time that the
DeschCnes Commission was investigating the destruction of postwar case files, and she
was quite understandably sensitive to the attention being focused on her work and on
the records in her care. She was also troubled by what her own investigations, as well as
testimony before the Commission, were revealing about the precarious state of
Immigration's control over its case files. It became obvious to McCardle that
Immigration staff possessed insufficient knowledge of the workings of their own case
file system, but she had only a limited amount of time in which to study it. While it is
almost certain that she had a much better understanding of Immigration's case file
system than the department itself, she was still very concerned that her inability to
understand the system completely might lead to a wrong appraisal decision, which
could result in the destruction of valuable documentation. Such destruction would again
focus potentially damaging publicity on the Public Archives of Canada. McCardle was
also worried that Immigration would destroy records without authorization while the
schedule was still under considerati~n.~
McCardle's attention was also drawn to the huge effort recently made by archivists at
the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C. to appraise the
vast case file system of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In 1980, the National
Archives and Records Service (as it was then called) was ordered by a judge of the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia to undertake an archival
appraisal and develop a records disposition schedule for the records of the FBI. This
ruling was made in response to a lawsuit which had been launched in 1979 by over fifty
groups and individuals who were concerned that valuable FBI records were being
destroyed with the permission of the National archive^.^ Like the Immigration case
files, pressure was placed on archivists for a thorough and speedy appraisal of a huge,
decentralized, and dauntingly complex system of records as much for political as for
archival reasons. McCardle was uncomfortably aware of the similarities between the
two cases, and was concerned to avoid taking any appraisal decision that would lead to
a similar public controversy.'"
Employment and Immigration Canada was also anxious for the Public Archives to
provide quick approval of its case file schedule. The DCschenes Commission findings
put great pressure on the Department to improve its records management operations,
and it was still trying to cope with a moratorium on file destruction which had been
imposed shortly after the establishment of the Commission. However, while
Immigration wanted the schedule approved quickly, it was not able to provide all the
information necessary to the records analysis and appraisal: in addition to exhibiting a
disconcerting lack of understanding of its records systems, the format of the schedule
submitted by Immigration bore little relationship to the actual organization of the
 REAPPRAISAL 109

records; Immigration was unable to provide adequate information on related automated

and micrographic records; and only incomplete information was forthcoming from the
field offices.
The problems surrounding this appraisal were obviously very serious. Fortunately,
the appraisal had been assigned to an exceptional archivist. In a matter of weeks,
Bennett McCardle conducted an analysis of the many levels of case-file creating offices
within the Immigration programme and the flow of information between them. Her
appraisal report ranks among the best sources on the organization and functions of the
Immigration programme." Detailed transfer specifications for each of the twenty or
more categories of record-creating offices were laid out. Quite understandably,
however, in light of the problems surrounding the schedule, the report was much more
of an information analysis than an archival appraisal. Relatively little was said of the
potential historical and archival value of these records, and of the importance of their
role in the larger Immigration information universe, simply because that larger universe
was undefined and unknown.
In detail, the Immigration case file schedule required the transfer of the following
categories of files:
1. All files opened prior to 1969. This limitation was intended to protect any doc-
umentation created before implementation of the automated Immigration data
system.
2. All files classified as "secret" or higher. Case files which receive special security
classification were found to be of potentially high informational value. In addition, a
quirk of the Immigration records system resulted in the inclusion of valuable subject
files within a special secret case file series.
3. All files concerning historic, controversial or precedent-setting cases, as determined
by Immigration programme officers. Again, it was hoped that the transfer of these
files would provide documentation of operations surrounding important cases.
4. All files measuring more than 2.5 cm in thickness, or more than one volume in
extent. These "fat files" were believed to be of potential evidential and informational
value, because the cases were probably of enough significance to have generated
large amounts of documentation.
5. All files from special file series created for immigrants of particular nationalities or
races. Immigration has maintained a number of special case file systems for certain
ethnic and national groups. The largest of these was the Chinese Immigration case
file system, which documents the deliberate discrimination experienced by Chinese
immigrants at the hands of the federal government from the late nineteenth century
until the 1960s.
6. A sample of almost all the other case files created at both overseas and Canadian
immigration offices was to be transferred. This limitation was intended to result in
the transfer of files of archival value as an aggregate for evidential and statistical
purposes.'?
As transfers of the case files started to arrive at the National Archives after the
schedule was approved in late 1988, it became apparent that the archival limitation
requiring the transfer of a sample of most categories of case files was going to result in
the acquisition of an overwhelming number of records of dubious archival value. The
lack of time and opportunity to conduct a comprehensive archival appraisal, the dearth
of information on related records in other media, and National Archives sensitivity to
the implications of the Deschsnes Commission and the FBI appraisal, had produced an
archival appraisal that erred on the side of caution in determining the records required
to be transferred to the Archives. As McCardle has put it, she was too afraid at the time
to make any other decision than to call for the transfer to the Archives of an
unprecedented number of records. She simply did not know enough about the records
(and she probably knew more than anyone else) to risk destroying anything but those
files with obviously no archival value.
Another major problem encountered during the original appraisal was that
Immigration was not able to include electronic records in its retention and disposal
submission to the Archives. The Archives was aware of the great research potential of
the Immigration databases, but with only limited information on data elements and the
integrity of the data, it was decided that the paper case files would have to serve the
same archival purpose as the automated systems until the systems were appraised and
acquired. Similarly, because an appraisal of Immigration's policy and subject records
had not yet been conducted, the acquisition of case files was seen as a way of
documenting the evidential value of certain Immigration activities.
As more information was subsequently gathered o n the automated databases
maintained by the Immigration programme, the need to acquire a sample of case files
for statistical research also came into question. A great deal has been learned about the
main Immigration data system, its statistical subsystems, specialty databases created for
the purposes of policy analysis, and about Immigration's long-range plans to eliminate
paper forms, which carry the bulk of the documentation on case files, in favour of direct
data entry. At the same time, the staff of the National Archives have become more
technically and intellectually prepared to appraise and acquire large databases.
Similarly, as more was learned about the Immigration subject file system in the course
of another records schedule and archival appraisal, the need to acquire case files for the
purpose of documenting Immigration operations also became doubtful.
Another cause for concern was the sampling method that had been chosen for the
vast majority of the files. The one selected was the "F" sample method, whereby all
files on people whose surnames started with the letter "F" would be transferred to the
National Archives. The "F" sample method had been proposed in a commissioned
report delivered to the then Machine Readable Archives Division of the Public Archives
of Canada in 1983, which concluded that among all surnames of Canadians and recent
immigrants to Canada, those starting with the letter "F"were most representative of the
population as a whole." Again, because of the need for a speedy appraisal and approval
of the case file schedule, the National Archives had to settle for calling for an " F
sample, even though Bennett McCardle was aware of its serious shortcoming^.^^ Indeed,
further investigation of this and other sampling methods used by the Government
Archives Division has determined that the "F" method is not statistically valid, and
results in large and unpredictable sample sizes. A number of languages do not include
the letter "F," rendering this method highly unsuitable for sampling an immigrant
p o p ~ l a t i o n . 'Furthermore,
~ most government case files, including the Immigration case
 REAPPRAISAL III

files, are not organized alphabetically, but numerically. As a result, it was impractical
for records management staff to pull the required sample.
The problems surrounding the appraisal of the Immigration case files were extreme,
but the conditions experienced during that appraisal obtain during countless other
archival appraisals: the inability or lack of opportunity to arrive at a complete
understanding of the total information context in which the records in question were
created and used; the information management needs of the creating body; current
research trends and specific researcher requirements; time and money constraints; and
other 'political demands'. That these competing demands influence archival decision-
making is no one's fault in particular, but they can and do result in unfortunate appraisal
decisions. It is therefore essential to rethink appraisal decisions whenever it becomes
apparent that an inappropriate decision has been made. Archival reappraisal should be
viewed as an important and necessary component of the appraisal process. As a
profession, we are still grappling with the question of how archival appraisals should be
conducted; how then are we to approach retrospective reappraisal?
Leonard Rapport favours the deaccessioning of underutilized records as a collections
management tool, where records would have to prove their worthiness for permanent
preservation on the basis of their popularity with researchers. Rapport advocates that the
large processing backlog experienced by most archives be formalized into a specific
waiting period, after which the records would be selected for permanent retention or
deaccessioned in their entirety.lh It is my opinion, however, that the best way to
reappraise records is to conduct a new appraisal, using knowledge gained since the
original appraisal and using an appraisal framework based on sound appraisal theory.
Reappraisal should take place when an archivist realizes that the wrong records have
been acquired, or that records exist which are of greater archival value than those which
have already been acquired or scheduled for acquisition. Furthermore, reappraisal
should only be contemplated when the conditions which contributed to the flaws in the
original appraisal decision either no longer exist or can be remedied. Ideally, three
conditions should be present whenever an appraisal or reappraisal decision is made: the
archivist should have as complete an understanding as possible of the functions and
organization of the creator of the records being reappraised, and of the information
universe in which the records were created and used; archivists should be aware of, and
use, the growing body of theory on archival appraisal when making appraisal decisions;
and appraisal and acquisition should take place in an environment in which archival
concerns take precedence over other concerns as much as possible.
Some new developments at the National Archives of Canada should help archivists
come to grips both with the task of reappraisal and with new appraisals in the future.
These are the National Archives Acquisition Strategy and its related research projects,
and the recently implemented Planned Approach to the Disposition of Records of the
Government of Canada." These new strategies are intended to result in a research-
oriented, archivally-driven approach to the appraisal and acquisition of government
records.
Work on the development of an acquisition strategy at the National Archives of
Canada has entailed numerous steps, such as arriving at an understanding of the
relationships between the public and private sectors in Canadian society; weighing the
pros and cons of the provenance-based versus the thematic approach to acquisition; in-
112 ARCHIVARIA 33

depth research projects on specific themes in Canadian society, and the structure and
functional character of federal government records creators; the identification of
specific acquisition targets; the redefinition of what constitutes "national significance";
and the encouragement of acquisition networking in the Canadian archival community,
and the development of acquisition strategies in all Canadian archives.
The Planned Approach to the Disposition of Records of the Government of Canada
requires the creation of "Multi-Year Disposition Plans" for all federal government
departments and agencies which are required to seek the approval of the National
Archivist before they may dispose of records.18 In this approach, all federal government
departments and agencies have been placed in priority order for records disposition.
Archivists are then to conduct research into the nature of the information created by
each department or agency, and thereby determine which programmes create records of
the greatest potential archival value. The National Archives will then enter into
agreements with all departments and agencies to require them to create records disposal
schedules for all of their programmes in an order largely determined by the potential
archival value of the records.
Also useful in the reappraisal of the Immigration case files has been literature on
"documentation strategy," and Terry Cook's forthcoming RAMP study entitled The
Archival Appraisal of Records Containing Personal Information." One of the basic
concepts of documentation strategy is the extensive linkage between records created by
governments and private organizations and between records of all media. In this sense,
no institution or record is an island; the proliferation of government and private
bureaucracies, and the now clichCd "information explosion," mean that any one event,
person or place can be documented by television and film, by photographs and artwork,
by maps, by data in an automated database, and by books and articles, and that any of
these records can be created simultaneously by multiple layers of government as well as
by business, institutions, and individuals. What archivists need, then, is a strategy to
help them decide which events, people, and places need to be documented on a long-
term basis, and what the nature and scope of that documentation should be. Unlike the
acquisition strategy of one repository, the documentation strategy could conceivably
involve a number of archival institutions, libraries, educational institutions, and creating
institutions.
In his forthcoming RAMP study, Terry Cook contends that traditional appraisal
methods have archivists assessing the potential long-term evidential, informational and
research value of specific series of records before actually establishing whether the series
was worthy of appraisal in the first place. With the vast quantities of records available for
archival acquisition, such an approach is no longer feasible. Cook therefore advocates
what he calls the "mind over matter" approach to appraisal, or "macro-appraisal," for
personal information records. This approach will enable archivists to determine which of
all the series of records created in a society are the best candidates for archival
preservation. Cook has been greatly influenced by a number of European archival
theorists, who believe that the records chosen for permanent retention must be those
records which best document the issues, events, and ideas considered by the creating
society to have been of the greatest importance to that society.
Cook proposes that archivists use a theoretical model of how society functions to
help them make their macro-appraisal decisions. Cook's model is based on an
 REAPPRAISAL 113

understanding of the nature of the interaction between citizens and the state in a
democratic society, just one of the many different types of interaction that occur. The
essence of this interaction must be established in order for the archivist to determine
first why records are created. It is in answering the question of why records are created
in the course of the state-citizen interaction, that archivists begin to understand which of
all the personal information records created by a government are of the greatest
potential value. This value is determined by the extent to which a particular interaction
results in the creation of an "image" of the society in which the interaction takes place.
Cook views this process as intellectually demanding work, requiring archival and
historical research in order to understand the nature of the citizen-state interaction, the
complexities of state agencies, and the inter-relationships between organizations of the
state and organizations of the private sector.
Such ideas and procedures can b e adapted for use in the reappraisal of the
Immigration case files. Four steps would be followed in this reappraisal. The first would
be to determine whether the theme of immigration to Canada is one of sufficient
importance to our society to warrant the preservation of a record of it for the future.
This step seems obvious; it is doubtful whether anyone would deny that immigration is
an important aspect of Canadian society. In the case of some other narrower topics,
however, the answer may not be so obvious. At this stage, some of the work on the
National Archives Acquisition Strategy would be helpful in determining the importance
of the broad theme of immigration, and especially of numerous related subthemes.
In the second step, all actors and interactions in the immigration experience would be
identified and the relative importance of these interactions, government and private,
within the immigration process assessed. The actors are the people or groups of people
w h o actually create the records which will b e appraised, and include federal
government agencies involved in the process of immigration and settlement;"'
provincial departments of community and social services; municipal social benefit
programmes; community, ethnic or religious organizations involved in sponsoring
immigrants and helping immigrants adjust to life in Canada; the immigrants themselves,
along with their families in Canada; and any other interested parties. The interactions
are the situations in which two or more actors become involved in a relationship, which
could be as complex as the immigrant selection process or as simple as the exchange of
letters between a prospective immigrant and relatives in Canada. Archivists must
understand the ways in which all these diverse individuals, bureaucracies, and
organizations interact not only within the parameters of the legislated and regulated
immigration process but also outside it.
In the third step, the archivists would choose the most important actors and their
records for further appraisal. All the records, in all media, of a single actor or case of
interaction, in this case the federal Immigration programme, would be appraised
comprehensively for their archival value, and decisions taken as to what portion of the
entire record will be acquired by which archival repository. It is at this stage that the
archival value of the case files would have to be established in the context of all the
other records created both by the Immigration Programme, and by other government
agencies as well as private organizations and individuals.
In his RAMP study, Cook proposes useful appraisal criteria for determining which of
the case file series created as a result of citizen-state interaction are of the greatest
potential archival value, that is, which records provide the "sharpest" image of the
creating society. According to Cook, these records will be those which demonstrate
significant differences between the goals and the actual results of a government
programme. Other appraisal questions to be asked of the records include whether the
documentation is created directly by the employee and/or the citizen; how much leeway
is allowed both sides of the interaction in determining what and how much information
will be recorded; d o the records include rejected or unsuccessful cases as well as
successful ones.*'
The fourth and final step in the reappraisal process would entail specific appraisal
decisions as to what files will be acquired, assuming that the records are deemed to be
of archival value at all. This final step in the appraisal should be done according to
institutional appraisal criteria.
As yet, only tentative reappraisal decisions have been made on the Immigration case
files. The main recommendation will probably be to cease acquiring a sample of most
of the case files. Immigration's automated systems capture most of the information on
individual cases that could be used for statistical research; these automated records are
already used extensively for statistical purposes by Immigration departmental
researchers, demographers, and other social scientists. The National Archives has
advanced far enough in its electronic records programme to acquire these records on a
regular basis and to provide the information to researchers. The recent scheduling of
Immigration's subject files also means that a sample of case files is no longer needed to
document any aspect of Immigration's operations and procedures.
More importantly, preliminary research into the nature of the interaction between the
Immigration Programme and the immigrants themselves has shown that immigrants
have very little opportunity to create documentation or express themselves through the
documentation in the case files, and has confirmed my opinion that the files do little to
reveal the "image" of the immigrant-Immigration Programme interaction. While
information on immigrants exists in the files, it is information deemed appropriate to
the case by the government, not the immigrant personally. According to Victor Malarek
in his 1987 indictment of the Canadian immigration system, Immigration actually tries
to discourage applicants from telling their own side of the story, through a brochure
which warns that "unnecessary inquiries about the status of an application may slow the
Such a statement may well contribute to the shortage of records created by
immigrants themselves in the official documentation. The government side of the
interaction will be well documented through policy and operational records; basic
demographic profiles of each immigrant will be documented by the Immigration data
systems and the microfilmed records of entry.
The challenge now faced by Canadian archivists is to document the Immigration
experience through the immigrants themselves. This is not the task of the government
records archivist alone; archivists responsible for the appraisal of private and public
archives at the National Archives and at other archives in Canada should collaborate in
researching and planning a strategy for the documentation of the immigration
experience in this country.
The approach to reappraisal that is being advocated here will entail a significant
amount of research and analysis. This will be true of all the initial appraisals and
 REAPPRAISAL 1 15

reappraisals conducted according to newer ideas in appraisal theory. Over time,

however, the amount of research and analysis necessary to such projects will decrease
as the archival profession develops a better understanding of the ways in which society
creates and uses documentation. As well, as our approach to appraisal improves, the
need for reappraisal should begin to disappear. That will not happen, however, until
archivists are given the necessary resources and authority to conduct sound appraisals in
the first place, and until working-level archivists are able to share more of their ideas
and information on appraisal with their colleagues. Others have made the case for
increased archival networking and cooperation in order to share information on the
existence of documentation and on appraisal decisions. This networking should occur
not only at the level of heads of institutions, but at the working level, where the
appraisal decisions are actually made. The Canadian archival system should be used in
future to develop means by which appraisal activity, especially research, can be made
available to all archivists. Archival appraisal is taking its rightful place at the forefront
of archival theory and practice; for the near future, however, reappraisal should also be
considered as a necessary and important part of the appraisal process.

Notes
This article is based on a presentatlon made at the Annual Conference of the Associatmn of Canadian
Archivists. BmfL Alberta, on 25 May 1991. I would like to express my gratitude to Jim Burant, Terry
Cook and Dan Moore of the National Archives of Canada. for their valuable comments and constant
encouragement; to my past and current supervisor\ Terry Cook, Dan Moore and David Enns; and to the
National Archives of Canada for making it po\sible for me to speak in Banff and to prepare this article. I
would also like to thank Bennett McCardle of the Archives of Ontarlo, who ha\ shared with me her
insights into the Immigration case file appraisal both recently and over the last five years. (The views
expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the National Archives of Canada.)
.. ..
Leonard Ranuort. "No Grandfather Clause: Reannraisine Accessioned Records." Tlrc Anw~-iurrAt-clriv~st
44 (Spring 198 I), pp. 143-50.
G

Sce Karen Benedict, "lnvitat~onto a Bonfire: Reappraisal and Deacce\sioning of Records as Collection
Management Tools ~n an Archives - A Reply to Leonard Rapport," 7'hr ~rn&(.u!r A~.chi~,i.$t
47 (Winter
1984), pp. 43-49.
Immigration is also respon\ible for regulating the entry of non-immigrants into Canada, but this article is
not concerned with any record\ relating to vis~tors.
Employment and Immigration Canada, Arr~irrulR q ~ o r t .1989-90 (Ottawa, 1990), pp. 40 and 42.
Statutes of Canada, P r i w r : ~A[,/, 1080-81-82-83. c. I I I . Sch.11 "I", Section 6 (3).
The appearance of Archii,ur.io 14 (Summer 1982) wa\ both a confirmation and an encouragement of the
growth in the use of archival material in the writing of social history. The Issue wa, devoted to articles on
the use of a wide range of archival material\. The author,, including David Gagan, Peter Ward, Alison
Prentice and Chad Gaffield, stressed the use of records not tradit~onallyconsidered to be of archival value,
or considered to he of value for other purposes, including case files.
Jules Deschhes, Rrpor-t ofthr Con7nris.siorr of Itrqrtir;\~otr Wur Crin?inuls, fur! I (Ottawa, 30 December
1986). In 1984, during its inve\tigation into war criminals in Canada, the RCMP discovered that a large
number of immigration case files were destroyed in late 1982 and early 1983. When Solicitor-General
Robert Kaplan was told of this, he jumped to the conclusion that Immigration had intentionally destroyed
docun~entationon the immigration of Nari war criminals into Canada. See pages 208 to 214 of the repon
for a summary of the file destruction ~ s s u eand the testimony of Public Archives and lmm~grationstaff.
See also Robert Hayward's article " 'Working in Thin Air': Of Archives and the Deschenes Commission,''
Arc.hiwrriu 26 (Summer 19XX), pp. 122-36, for a detailed discussion of the Public Archive,' involvement
in the Deschenes Commission, and the longer-tern impact of archives-related testimony on the appraisal
practices of the Government Archives Division. According to Hayward, the publicity received by the
Archives raised its profile in the federal bureaucracy, and highlighted the role of the archives in the
information management life cycle. The Commiss~on'shearings and report also forced the National
Archives to launch an attempt to make its appraisal, selection and sampling criteria more explicit, and to
improve the documentation of appraisal deckions.
Conversation with Bennett McCardle, 25 September 199 1.
For a thorough discussion of the FBI records appraisal, see James Gregory Bradsher, "The FBI Records
Appraisal," in Th? Midnesterrr Ardivist XI11 (1988), pp. 51-66.
Conversation with Bennett McCardle. 25 September 1991.
Memorandum, Government Archives Division, to Dr. Jean-Pierre Wallot, National Archivist of Canada, re
Formal Submission, lmmigration Case Files (paper only), 7 July 1987.
Other limitations applied to the records of specific offices only.
Jake Knoppers, Report on Archival Sampling Strategy and Related Issues (Ottawa, 1983).
Government Archives Division, Formal Submission, lmmigration Case Files, pp. 108-109, and
conversation with Bennett McCardle, 25 September 1991.
For a full examination of this and other archival sampling and appraisal issues in the Government
Archives Division, see Teny Cook, "The Appraisal of Case Files: Sampling and Selection Guidelines for
the Government Archives Division, National Archives of Canada," 9 January 1991.
Rapport, "No Grandfather Clause."
National Archives of Canada, Government Records Branch, Disposition of the Records of the Government
of Canada -A Planned Approach, 3 July 1990.
The definition of what qualifies as a federal government institution, and therefore which institutions are
required to submit schedules for the approval of the National Archivist, is found in the National Archives
of Canada Act (35-36 Elizabeth 11, ch. I. s. 2). The Act, however, does not list the institutions which fit the
definition. For a list of all the federal agencies which must seek the approval of the National Archivist in
order to destroy records, see "Government-Wide Plan for the Disposition of Records, 1991-1996" (Report
approved by the National Archivist, 20 November 1990).
On documentation strategy, see Helen Willa Samuels, "Who Controls the Past," The American Archivist
50 (Spring 1986), pp. 109-24 and Richard Cox and Helen W. Samuels, "The Archivist's First
Responsibility: A Research Agenda to Improve the Identification and Retention of Records of Enduring
Value," The American Archivist 5 1 (Winter-Spring 1988). pp. 28-42: Terry Cook, The Archival Appraisal
of Records Containing Per-sonal fnfor'ntation: A RAMP Study with Guidelines [Final draft submitted to the
International Council of Archives, August 19901.
Federal departments involved in immigration and settlement include the Canada Employment and
lmmigration Commission, the lmmigration and Refugee Board, the Secretary of State, and the Department
of External Affairs.
Cook, pp. 26-27.
Victor Malarek, Heaven's Gate: Canada's Immigration Fiasco (Toronto, 1987). pp. 26-27.