The Role of the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada: Report Submitted to the Honourable Sheila Copps by John English (review)

Book Reviews The Role of the National Archives of Canada and the National Library of Canada: Report Submitted to the Honourable Sheila Copps. JOHN ENGLISH. Ottawa 1999. Pp. 46, plus appendices. Also in French. Available from the Department ofCanadian Heritage, or at The National Archives ofCanada and the National Library ofCanada are two ofCanada's premier cultural institutions where historians undertake academic research. Historians should be interested, therefore, in the findings of this intensive study undertaken by John English, respected Canadian historian, former member of parliament, and Liberal Party insider. Commissioned by Sheila Copps, minister of Canadian heritage, in March 1998, English was charged 'to report on whether the institutions are properly positioned to preserve, promote and provide access to Canada's heritage and confront the challenges ofthe information age in the next century while continuing to manage collections and records in traditional forms.' Copps added that English should 'see if new means can be found to strengthen the capacity ofthe National Archives and the National Library to respond to citizens' needs and to play a leading role in information management partnerships, both at the national and international levels.' She added that the review was not intended to be a 'cost-reduction exercise,' but it was also not 'intended to generate additional costs for the Government.' Consultation was to be wideranging , with the staff of the two institutions, the archival and library communities, the academic sector, other government departments, national and international associations and institutions, and Canadians at large. The minister also asked English to focus on seven specific areas: mandate, collections and acquisitions, access, preservation, information management issues, organizational structure, and leadership. English adhered closely to these seven areas in the organization and substance of his report, which was released in the summer of1999. 676 The Canadian Historical Review English did his job conscientiously by consulting widely in the relevant communities - perhaps too much so. He notes in three spots the 'extraordinary' response, which 'far exceeded our expectations.' English and his two assistants seem in fact a little overwhelmed by the avalanche offormal briefs, other documents, interviews, staffmeetings, and personal communications. The report has a curiously undigested feel, with no executive summary, table of contents, or even numbered recommendations - all standard in such works. The report contains many useful insights, given under the seven headings provided by Copps, but with contradictory input often left unreconciled, contentious accommodation issues not comprehensively addressed, and with no overarching or directing vision for the two institutions. That said, there is much here ofvalue to historians, archivists, librarians, and other users of not just the National Archives and the National Library, but ofarchives and libraries everywhere. While the list of English's forty-two recommendations alone well exceeds the space allocated for this review, the general tone ofthe report and its highlights may be indicated. The oft-heard notion ofmerging the two institutions was universally condemned in both communities, and English buries the notion, although perhaps with some regret that a grand stroke was thereby rendered impossible. He notes that the two institutions share headquarters facilities and have had integrated services for general administration, finance, and preservation for decades. He recommends that this informal cooperation be regularized through a common board and extended to include internal records management and information technology, as well as cultural programming, publishing , and exhibitions. Laurier Lapierre has since been appointed to chair this common board bridging the two institutions. Otherwise, the two extended communities reacted differently. The library community complained about the lack of effective leadership by the National Library in championing the federal government libraries system and in supporting the library community nationally, especially the need for a national digital library strategy. Conversely, the archival community praised the National Archives for its effective leadership nationally through arm's-length sponsorship ofthe Canadian Council of Archives. Complaints about the archives were threefold: first, weakness by the Archives in addressing publicly and forcefully such information management issues as the effective preservation of electronic records, more liberal access to information, excessive privacy protection, and illegal destruction ofrecords; second, severe morale problems among its professional staff over the undermining of archival integrity based on research by archivists into records creators, recording media...