Archivaria            Contact us

   Members             Volunteer

  • 5 Feb 2024 2:44 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Are you a member in good standing? Are you interested in making a difference? Volunteer for one of the ACA’s committees!

    We have several openings:

    1)   Nominations and Awards Committee (NAAC) - contact Angela Fornelli

    2)   ACA Governance Committee – contact Ian Forsyth

    3)   ACA Financial Review Committee (FRC) contact Kyle Pugh

     Volunteer with Us

  • 29 Jan 2024 3:04 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Good day ACA members,

    Please see below, an email update from the Department of  Canadian Heritage re: their museum policy renewal work.

    Warmest regards,

    Erica Hernandez-Read


    Hello,

    Thank you for participating in the 2022-23 Consultations on the renewal of the Museum Policy conducted by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

    Your feedback was invaluable and gave us an opportunity to hear the priorities and concerns of the sector.

    Synthesizing what you’ve told us was a significant process and we wanted to do it with care and diligence.

    We are now pleased to share with you the final report from the consultation, summarizing the findings from Canadians, heritage stakeholders, Indigenous heritage organizations and experts, Modern Treaty Holders and provinces and territories: What we heard: 2022-2023 consultations on the renewal of the Canadian Museum Policy.

    We hope you will see your comments captured in the What we heard report.

    As the Department continues its work on the renewal of the museum policy, please do not hesitate to contact the team should you have any questions or concerns.

    Thank you and we appreciate your contribution.

    Sincerely,

    Museum policy team

  • 29 Jan 2024 10:45 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Applications for the 2024 Ancestry Continuing Education Award are now open. This scholarship, valued at $1200 CAD, is open to members of the BIPOC community who are pursuing an education in the field of archives and records management. The award also includes a complimentary membership to the ACA for one year. The Award is administered by the Association of Canadian Archivists Foundation.

    Applications close 31 March 2024. The English application form can be found here<https://archivists_ca.formstack.com/forms/ancestry_continuing_education_award>, and the French application form here<https://archivists_ca.formstack.com/forms/programme_de_bourse_de_formation_continue_ancestry>.

    Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

    Kyle Pugh

    treasurer@archivists.ca

  • 25 Jan 2024 9:25 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    CALL FOR STUDENT PAPERS AND THE EMERGING VOICES SESSION

    ACA Virtual Conference

    10-13 June 2024

    The ACA 2024 Conference Program Team invites students of library, archives and information studies who have written a paper, conducted research, or participated in a project to share their experience and submit proposals. That's right, take it to the next level and gain valuable public speaking skills while building your resume. We encourage you to submit proposals related to the key topics of the ACA 2024 Conference: Artificial Intelligence and Archives; the Climate Crisis; and social and political conflict. However, the CALL for Student Papers and the Emerging Voices Session welcomes all topics and first-time presenters!

    All Student submissions will be considered by the ACA Foundation Board Members for selection in the Emerging Voices Session. Three successful applicants will be invited to present virtually in the Emerging Voices Session, and will receive a monetary award and complimentary conference registration. To receive this award, you must be an ACA Student member. Submissions that are not selected for the Emerging Voices Session will be considered for the general conference program.

    Deadline for Submissions is 19 February, 2024 at 11:59 pm MST

    ACA 2024 Student Submission Form

    If you have any questions, please contact the Chair of the ACA Conference Program Team at Program.team@archivists.ca

  • 18 Jan 2024 9:53 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Dear GRSIS members,

    We are rescheduling the next GRSIS coffee chat until a time that will work for more members. Please stay tuned for a February gathering! Meanwhile, if you have suggestions for discussion topics or a new approach to these coffee chats, please contact me. Personally, I am inspired by the fabulous new NFB documentary UnArchived, and would be very interested to hear what work our community is doing that addresses the issues it raises.

    Here's a link to that film if you haven't seen it yet: https://www.nfb.ca/distribution/film/unarchived

    See you in February!

    Susan Hart

    susanhart314@gmail.com

  • 18 Jan 2024 9:22 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Do you know an international archivist who is studying in the United States or Canada?

    The Oliver Wendell Holmes Award enables international archivists, who are currently training or studying in the United States or Canada, to augment their experience by traveling to the Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archivists. Recipients receive a certificate and a cash award of $1,000 to help cover costs of the 2024 SAA Annual Meeting for archives students who are not U.S. or Canadian citizens (or permanent residents) and are studying in the United States or Canada. Self-nominations are welcome.

    Please click here for additional details and to preview the online application for the Holmes Award. The deadline is February 28, 2024 at 11:59 PM CST.

    All applications must include the following:

    1. Personal statement/essay
    2. CV or resume

    If you have any questions regarding the award or the application process, please contact Tamar Zeffren, Oliver Wendell Holmes Award Committee Chair, at tzeffren@ajhs.org.

  • 16 Jan 2024 10:04 AM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    Below (and attached) is the archival community response to the Federal Government Consultation on Copyright in the Age of Generative Artificial Intelligence, submitted by the Canadian Council of Archives and endorsed by the Association of Canadian Archivists and l’Association des archivistes du Québec.  A French translation of the submission will be posted when it becomes available.

    The submission was prepared by the Canadian Council of Archives (CCA) Statutory Review Working Group - established to examine and address issues related to the Canadian archival community in the review of the Canadian Copyright Act, and the ongoing consultations instituted by the federal government. The Working Group is composed of: Nancy Marrelli, Chair; Jean Dryden, appointed by the Association of Canadian Archivists; Nancy Marrelli is also Interim representative of l’Association des archivistes du Québec.

    The consultation submissions required responses to an online questionnaire, so the attached document replicates the questions and our responses. Some questions were not applicable to our community and they have been tagged as Not Applicable (NA)

    Copyright and Generative AI Consultation
    Questionnaire Responses from the Canadian Archival Community


    January 14, 2024
    Technical Evidence

    The Government of Canada invites views on technical aspects of AI technologies, including on the following questions:

    • How does your organization access and collect copyright-protected
    content, and encode it in training datasets?

    NA (not applicable)

    • How does your organization use training datasets to develop AI
    systems?

    NA

    • In your area of knowledge or organization, what measures are taken to
    mitigate liability risks regarding AI-generated content infringing existing
    copyright-protected works?

    NA

    • In your area of knowledge or organization, what is the involvement of
    humans in the development of AI systems?

    NA

    • How do businesses and consumers use AI systems and AI-assisted and AI-
    generated content in your area of knowledge, work, or organization?

    The holdings in Libraries, Archives and Museums (LAMs) are a major source of documents for AI researchers in their development of training datasets for use in training AI models, particularly those datasets used to train large language models. Canadian archival holdings are a rich treasure trove of records in all formats that serve as the raw material for scholars, students, and ordinary citizens. Archival institutions have eagerly embraced the opportunities provided by the Internet to digitize and make our holdings available online. When digitized, traditional records can be mined for valuable historical information. For example, fur traders’ journals document decades of weather patterns, relations between indigenous people and settlers, and early commercial activities; and tax rolls record the names of residents, which are of great interest to family historians. In addition, archival institutions are acquiring born-digital records and research data
    sets from their parent institutions and private donors.

    Transparency and ensuring non-bias in training datasets is of concern to LAMs because of our public service mission. Although it may be onerous, it is very desirable to create the metadata to be able to identify and link the training datasets to the generative AI output created by the AI tool. This metadata will provide transparency and oversight to the users, and also for the creators and rightsholders whose works are used in the datasets in a non-consumptive way. Canadian LAMS are also beginning to use some of the emerging generative AI tools for their own purposes. Archives can use AI tools to generate basic metadata, transcriptions, and create important access points for all manner of digitized documents, thereby providing greatly improved access to our holdings for their researchers and the General Public. (See Pavis, Mathilde. Artificial Intelligence: a digital heritage leadership briefing, 2023 https://www.heritagefund.org.uk/about/insight/research/artificial-intelligence-digital-heritage-leadership-briefing.). Along with many other materials, Canadian archives include a large volume of orphan works (works for which the rights holder is unknown or unreachable) on a wide variety of topics and archivists and researchers would benefit greatly from more clarity on whether or not orphan works can be digitized to enable this kind of improved access. The newly created metadata that can be produced by generative AI will unlock access to the content of archival holdings that goes well beyond what is possible with the limited human resources currently available in archival institutions.

    Recommendations:
    • Provide clarity in the Copyright Act for the legal use of data for training
    generative AI tools
    • Require AI researchers and developers to ensure training datasets have
    identifiable metadata that can be linked to generative AI output

    Text and Data Mining

    The Government of Canada invites views on whether any clarification is needed on how the copyright framework applies to text and data mining (TDM) activities, notably on how and when rights holders could or should be compensated for the use of copyright-protected content as inputs in the development of AI. Although all comments are welcomed, the Government is particularly interested in receiving feedback on the following questions:

    • What would more clarity around copyright and TDM in Canada mean for
    the AI industry and the creative industry?

    NA

    • Are TDM activities being conducted in Canada? Why or why not?

    NA

    • Are rights holders facing challenges in licensing their works for TDM
    activities? If so, what is the nature and extent of those challenges?

    NA

    • What kind of copyright licenses for TDM activities are available, and do
    these licenses meet the needs of those conducting TDM activities?

    NA

    • If the Government were to amend the Act to clarify the scope of
    permissible TDM activities, what should be its scope and safeguards?

    Libraries, archives, and museums (LAMs) are unlikely to be AI developers, so
    LAMs don’t need an exception that permits them to use copies to train machines. LAMs are more likely to be asked to make copies of their holdings for AI developers upon request. If so, the fair dealing provision (s 29) of the Copyright Act (CA) may well serve, with some changes. The changes proposed below build upon provisions that are part of the balance between the rights of copyright owners and the interests of users already established within the CA. Before describing the proposed changes, it is important to note that provisions such as fair dealing and the exceptions for LAMs are fundamental to the balance inherent in a well-functioning copyright system. Canada’s approach to the challenges of AI must begin with established principles. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) has established that exceptions are not just loopholes, but users’ rights (CCH v LSUC 2004 SCC 13 para 48), and we steadfastly defend their presence (particularly the fair dealing provision) as a fundamental principle. Since fair dealing is not limited to particular user groups, rights, formats, or categories of
    protected matter, everyone can benefit from it to access and use copyrighted material without authorization or payment, provided that the dealing is fair as determined by the SCC’s two-step test.

    As beneficiaries of fair dealing, LAMs already can make copies upon request for the purpose of research. Provided that TDM is appropriately defined to be clear that it is included within a broad and liberal interpretation of research, making copies for TDM falls within one of the allowable purposes of fair dealing. That uncertainty would be clarified if the fair dealing provision were amended by adding TDM or computational data analysis to the list of authorized purposes, OR by making the purposes illustrative rather than exhaustive, i.e., “fair dealing for purposes such as research, private study, ...do not infringe copyright.” A further condition would require the LAM to inform the requester that the copies were provided for research only, that any further uses may require the permission of the rights holder, and that it is the responsibility of the requester to obtain any necessary permissions. Admittedly, the scope of fair dealing may have to be clarified through litigation, since the limited case law cited in the consultation paper does not address situations where the copied images were used to train a
    machine.

    Since users’ rights are fundamental to a balanced copyright system, constraining them through contractual agreements undermines the system. Thus, the Copyright Act must be amended to provide that any contractual provision contrary to the exceptions in the Act shall be unenforceable.

    The proposed amendments would provide legal clarity for both LAMs and AI
    developers by enabling LAMs to provide copies to AI developers to be used in the training of machine learning models.

    Recommendations:
    • Amend the fair dealing provision of the Copyright Act to provide that TDM lies within the scope of fair dealing.
    • Amend the Copyright Act to provide that copyright exceptions cannot be
    overridden by contract terms.

    • What would be the expected impact of such an exception on your industry
    and activities?

    NA

    • Should there be any obligations on AI developers to keep records of or
    disclose what copyright-protected content was used in the training of AI
    systems?

    Having sufficient metadata that would identify and link the training datasets to the generative AI output created by the AI tool would be highly desirable.
    Requiring AI developers to provide such metadata would provide transparency to the users of AI tools, and to the creators and rightsholders whose works are used in the datasets in a non-consumptive way. In order to ensure transparency and clarify rights issues, generative AI output should always be tagged as such.

    Recommendation
    • Require AI researchers and developers to ensure training datasets have
    identifiable metadata that can be linked to generative AI output.
    • Generative AI output should always be tagged as such.

    What level of remuneration would be appropriate for the use of a given work in TDM activities?

    NA

    • Are there TDM approaches in other jurisdictions that could inform a
    Canadian consideration of this issue?

    The possibility of a more general exception to permit TDM falls outside the scope of the archival community’s direct interests. If, however, such an exception is needed, the provisions of Singapore’s Copyright Act pertaining to computational data analysis (sections 243-244) are well thought out in terms of scope and appropriate safeguards.

    Its strengths are:
    • Definition of “computational data analysis” (s. 243)
    • Limited purpose (only Computational data analysis) (s. 244)(2)(a) & (b))
    • Copy supplied/communicated to another only in very limited circumstances (s.244)(2)(c) & 244)(4))
    • User must have lawful access to source materials (s. 244)(2)(d))
    • Infringing source materials can be used subject to specific limited conditions (s.244)(2)(e))


    Authorship and Ownership of Works Generated by AI

    The Government of Canada invites views on how the copyright framework should apply to AI-assisted and AI-generated content. Although all comments are welcomed, the Government is particularly interested in receiving feedback on the following questions:

    • Is the uncertainty surrounding authorship or ownership of AI-assisted and
    AI-generated works and other subject matter impacting the development
    and adoption of AI technologies? If so, how?

    In Canada the basic principle is well established that copyright is automatic
    for original creations that include human skill and judgment, as specified
    in the Supreme Court decision (CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper
    Canada, 2004 SCC 13, para. 25). The output that results from the generative
    AI mechanical process cannot meet this requirement for skill and
    judgment and is therefore not protected by copyright. The humanly
    created algorithm does meet the requirement and is protected by
    copyright.

    The current principle of not assigning copyright protection to generative AI
    output does not at all appear to be limiting the rapid development and
    adoption of AI technologies. The lack of certainty is, however, having a
    profound effect on creators and how they view their future prospects from
    both an economic and social standpoint.

    • Should the Government propose any clarification or modification of the
    copyright ownership and authorship regimes in light of AI-assisted or AI-
    generated works? If so, how?

    We believe that assigning full intellectual property rights to the output of
    generative AI processes is inappropriate. LAMs have a long history of
    advocating for clarity in the Copyright Act and we believe this issue must be
    addressed in the legislation, to provide as much clarity as possible.
    Even with the current constraints and uncertainties, AI is profoundly
    disruptive in many ways, particularly to the creative communities. Assigning
    copyright protection to AI output would very negatively affect the work of
    creators and their contribution to society, resulting in a negative effect on
    incentive to create. Extending copyright protection to AI output calls into
    question the value we place on human creativity and expression.
    AI processes can be programmed to create mass output that could quickly
    monopolize the creative space, thereby disrupting in profound ways human
    creative activity, the copyright balance, and the marketplace.

    The rapid development and dissemination of AI has already created
    considerable disruptions to the creator community, and these will continue
    to be a major problem. Creators contest that the ingest of their works in
    the creation of the AI training models without attribution, permission, or
    financial compensation is a serious problem that will affect them in many
    ways. But fair dealing and/or a TDM exemption would permit data mining
    for research purposes of the millions or billions of documents in the data
    sets used for training.

    The prospect of directly compensating creators within the structure of the
    Copyright Act raises many thorny problems. Copyright law should not be
    used to address broad societal problems and challenges. However,
    copyright law is not the only way that we can reward creators. We
    recommend that the Government create a system outside the copyright
    regime to reward and acknowledge creators for the part their work plays in
    generative AI, such as a program in which AI developers are required to
    contribute to a fund that will be plowed back into the creator community to
    support a broad spectrum of Canadian creativity. (Other examples of this
    type of scheme are Canada’s Public Lending Rights, Telefilm). The details of
    how such a program would work would have to be carefully considered,
    with input from the creator community, and the outcomes would have to
    include mandatory contributions by those developing the training datasets,
    and money paid out to the creator community. This would help redress the
    balance between human creators and the potential dominance of large
    corporate AI in the marketplace and the creation landscape. Such a
    program would enhance Government efforts to ensure support for
    Canadian creators and creative industries, while simultaneously fostering
    Canadian AI competitiveness, innovation, and support for maintaining
    overall access to Canadian creation, all of which are important public policy
    objectives.

    Recommendations:
    • Amend the Copyright Act to maintain and clarify the basic principle that
    copyright protects original creations that are the product of human skill and
    judgment and that the mechanical generative AI output is in the public
    domain, but the humanly created algorithm is protected by copyright.
    • Create a system outside the copyright regime, that rewards and
    acknowledges creators for the part their work plays in generative AI, whereby
    generative AI developers are required to contribute to a fund that will be
    plowed back into the creator community to support a broad spectrum of
    Canadian creativity.


    Are there approaches in other jurisdictions that could inform a Canadian
    consideration of this issue?

    With further study and careful consideration, it is possible to consider very
    limited rights for AI outputs in particular circumstances, a variation of what
    is sometimes referred to as “thin copyright”, such as the limited rights
    sometimes accorded to databases. But these should be very limited in both
    scope and duration.

    Recommendation:
    • Consider very limited rights for AI outputs in particular circumstances, a
    variation of what is sometimes referred to as “thin copyright”.

    Infringement and Liability regarding AI

    The Government of Canada invites views on questions about copyright
    infringement and liability raised by AI, particularly since there is a lack of evidence currently available in this regard. Although all comments are welcomed, the Government is particularly interested in receiving feedback on the following questions:

    • Are there concerns about existing legal tests for demonstrating that an AI-
    generated work infringes copyright (e.g., AI-generated works including
    complete reproductions or a substantial part of the works that were used in
    TDM, licensed or otherwise)?

    NA

    What are the barriers to determining whether an AI system accessed or
    copied a specific copyright-protected content when generating an infringing
    output?

    At present, there is no requirement for AI developers to provide metadata that would identify and link the training datasets to the generative AI output created by the AI tool. Requiring AI developers to provide such metadata would assist in determining whether protected material had been copied when generating an infringing output, in addition to providing transparency to users of AI tools, and to the creators and rightsholders whose works are used in the datasets.

    Recommendations
    • Require AI researchers and developers to ensure training datasets have
    identifiable metadata that can be linked to generative AI output.

    • When commercialising AI applications, what measures are businesses taking to mitigate risks of liability for infringing AI-generated works?

    NA

    • Should there be greater clarity on where liability lies when AI-generated
    works infringe existing copyright-protected works?

    It is clear that there should be greater clarity on where liability lies when AI-
    generated works infringe copyright-protected works. The current liabilities for copyright infringement should apply, but the issues will be clarified through litigation. Resolving the potential continuum of responsibility that arises with the actual situations in the litigation will be a more realistic approach, rather than rushing into a legislative solution that may have unintended consequences. The solutions must be consistent with the public policy issues discussed in other sections of this questionnaire

    Recommendations
    • Continue to apply current liability provisions and remedies for copyright
    infringement.
    • Resolve liability and remedies issues that arise with ongoing litigation, to be consistent with sound public policy

    • Are there approaches in other jurisdictions that could inform a Canadian
    consideration of this issue?

    NA

  • 15 Jan 2024 1:13 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    You are cordially invited to a free online lecture (9 February 2024 at 12 p.m. EST): “Rare Virtues & Most Ingenious Men: Benito Arias Montano, Christophe Plantin, and the Remarkable Emblem Book Humanae Salutis Monumenta.”

    In 1568, the erudite priest and scholar Benito Arias Montano made the arduous journey from his homeland of Spain to the city of Antwerp to oversee the edition of the Polyglot Bible by the renowned press of Christophe Plantin. The two men struck up an ardent and enduring friendship while producing some of the most fascinating and historically significant texts of sixteenth-century Europe. McMaster University’s Archives and Research Collections holds several books resulting from this partnership, including two copies of Arias Montano’s Humanae Salutis Monumenta (Monuments of Human Salvation) — a lavishly illustrated emblem book with a complex publication history. Though both copies share the same title page, dated 1571, they are otherwise typographically and visually distinct. How can this be?  

    Join Ruth-Ellen St. Onge, McMaster’s Distinctive Collections Cataloguing Librarian, on an exploration of sixteenth-century emblem books, the friendship and working partnership of Arias Montano and Plantin, and the intricate and surprising differences between two copies of one book. This deep dive into the publishing history and physical features of Humanae Salutis Monumenta aims to provide fresh insights into a time of great crisis and intellectual ferment. 

    This lecture is hosted by McMaster University Library’s Archives Alive program in partnership with McMaster University Alumni.  

    Register using this link: https://zoom.us/webinar/register/7117029337060/WN_YJ6K3R2YStyLooXIzk7Eqw#/registration. Please feel free to share this invitation with other interested parties.

    Best wishes,  

    Gillian 

    Gillian Dunks, M.A., M.A.S. (she/her)

    Archives Arrangement & Description Librarian

    President, McMaster University Academic Librarians’ Association

    Archives and Research Collections

    McMaster University

    905-525-9140 x 23361

     

    McMaster University is located on the traditional territories of the Mississauga and Haudenosaunee nations, and within the lands protected by the Dish with One Spoon wampum agreement.

  • 4 Jan 2024 12:27 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    The deadline for submissions for the 2024 ACA Virtual Conference has been extended to January 19, 2024, 11:59 PM MST.

    Visit the site for more information on the conference.

  • 19 Dec 2023 2:20 PM | Anonymous member (Administrator)

    As a part of a UBC iSchool course on Public Programming, students Harron Hall, Laura Dickson and Oluwatomilola Ojo wrote this compelling letter to the political powers that be, calling for RCMP recordkeeping accountability in relation to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. This call is in response to recommendations published in Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, informally known as the “Wally Oppal” report, which focuses on the RCMP’s court challenge to allow for the destruction of evidence in the Robert Pickton case. 

    Please consider adding your name to the online petition linked at the end of this document.

     

    December 7, 2023

     

    The Honourable Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Public Safety, Democratic Institutions

    and Intergovernmental Affairs, Government of Canada

    269 Laurier Avenue West

    Ottawa ON K1A 0P8

     

    Niki Sharma, Attorney General of British Columbia

    Room 232 Parliament Buildings, Government of British Columbia

    Victoria BC V8V 1X4

     

    Mike Farnworth, Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General

    British Columbia, Government of British Columbia

    PO Box 9282 Stn Prov Govt

    Victoria BC V8W 9J7

     

    Mike Duheme, Commissioner, Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP)

    RCMP National Headquarters

    73 Leikin Drive

    Ottawa ON K1A 0R2

     

    Re: A call for RCMP recordkeeping accountability in relation to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people

     

    We are a group of information professionals who are deeply concerned about the scarcity of sufficient, comprehensive records relating to missing and murdered Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls shows that although it is likely that more than 1,000 Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people are missing or murdered, the exact number and the affected communities remain unknown.

    The enduring colonial relationship between the justice system and Indigenous people is fraught with bias and discrimination. As a result, recordkeeping relating to these cases is insufficient and sometimes inaccurate—families often dispute the official conclusions of case files. This is especially clear in the Robert Pickton case, as families have advocated for co-conspirators to be charged and for Pickton to be charged with the remaining victims. Furthermore, inadequate record-keeping practices are outlined in the Forsaken: The Report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry, informally known as the “Wally Oppal” report. Commissioner Wally Oppal outlines that the lack of information systems hindered proper investigation. This caused a significant barrier to solving the cases sooner and enforcing justice.  

    The recent application submitted by the RCMP to dispose of roughly 14,000 exhibits relating to the Robert Pickton cases further demonstrates that recordkeeping and documentation around this issue are still not taken seriously. While we recognize the amount of resources needed to preserve the evidence, we also acknowledge that we are in an era of reconciliation, and it is past time to answer the recommendations outlined in the two inquiries, along with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action. Moreover, this letter endorses the recent RCMP Destruction of Evidence “open letter.” Moreover, consistent with the National Inquiry’s Final Report calling for nationwide consistency in reporting mechanisms for missing Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, we call on the RCMP to implement a strict, consistent, and comprehensive record-keeping policy for cases involving MMIWG2S+. This is imperative for justice, accountability, transparency, and truth and reconciliation. Furthermore, a database for existing records and new caseloads must be maintained. This database must be trauma-informed, Indigenous-led, and centered on impacted families.

    Therefore, in upholding our commitment towards reconciliation as information professionals, we call on the RCMP and governments of BC and Canada to intervene and support the request to preserve evidence in the Pickton case. We endorse the following Calls to Action outlined in the RCMP Destruction of Evidence “open letter.”

    1. Moratorium on Evidence Destruction: We call for an immediate end to the RCMP’s disposal (including dispersion or destruction) of evidence related to the Pickton case and for adequate resources to be allocated to ensure the integrity of this evidence is preserved to ensure a thorough investigation into the unsolved cases and prevent impunity for co-conspirators.

    2. Legislative Review and Reform: We call for a review and reform of the legislative framework governing evidence disposition, particularly in unsolved cases involving Indigenous and marginalized women and girls. This review should aim to create a clear, consistent, and transparent national policy that aligns with Canada’s human rights obligations to prevent and remedy violence against women

    3. Strengthening Accountability: Reinforce mechanisms of accountability within the RCMP and related judicial bodies to ensure that the handling of evidence always reflects the highest standards of investigation and respects the principles of reconciliation, human rights and equality.

    4. Prioritize Resources Towards the Unsolved Missing Women’s Investigations: We call for the RCMP to exercise their due diligence by prioritizing adequate resources towards the investigations of the unsolved missing women’s cases related to Pickton to ensure that they are capable of leading to prosecutions and remedies for victims. This includes ensuring that all legal avenues are explored

    Both the Wally Oppal and MMIW2S+ reports play a pivotal role in unveiling the pervasive issue of violence against Indigenous women and girls, providing a comprehensive understanding of the historical and systemic challenges they face. Ignoring the preservation and prioritization of information management and archival records within the justice system carries profound consequences. The primary risk lies in hindering transparency and perpetuating historical injustices. By neglecting this critical RCMP record, there is a danger of marginalizing the voices of Indigenous women and girls who have experienced violence, denying them the societal acknowledgement they deserve.

    Additionally, the failure of the RCMP and the Government of Canada to prioritize the RCMP record undermines the efforts of Indigenous people in seeking information about their family members. This neglect erodes the potential for truth and reconciliation, hindering the healing process for affected communities and obstructing the path toward justice. As technology advances, there is an opportunity to identify the DNA of co-conspirators and charge Robert Pickton with the murder of the remaining victims.

    Moreover, RCMP and the Government of Canada overlooking the proper documentation and keeping of this record will jeopardize the broader goal of addressing systemic issues, hindering progress toward a more equitable and just society. The consequences extend beyond the immediate implications for Indigenous communities, impacting the collective understanding of historical events and impeding the ability to learn from the past.

    In essence, ignoring the significance of the calls to action identified places at stake the pursuit of transparency, justice, and the comprehensive recognition of the experiences of Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people. It diminishes the potential for societal healing and reconciliation, perpetuating a cycle of historical oversight and systemic neglect.

     

    Sincerely,

    Harron Hall

    MAS student

    University of British Columbia

    EMAIL: hall29@ubc.student.ca

     

    Laura Dickson

    MLIS student, UBC

     

    Oluwatomilola Ojo

    MLIS Student, UBC

     

    Enclosed:

    Endorsers/Signatories - Re: A Call To Preserve Evidence In The Pickton Case (google.com)

Our Community

Public Awareness & Advocacy


Resources


Submissions


Contact Us

Suite 1912-130 Albert Street  

Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5G4

Tel:  613-383-2009 x100

Email: aca@archivists.ca

ACA Ask an Archivist

The ACA office is located on the unceded, unsurrendered Territory of the Anishinaabe Algonquin Nation whose presence here reaches back to time immemorial.



Privacy & Confidentiality  -  Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct

Copyright © 2023 - The Association of Canadian Archivists

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software