CONTENTS
Thursday 15 May 1997
Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, Bill 109, Ms Mushinksi / Loi de 1997 sur le contrôle local des bibliothèques publiques, projet de loi 109 Mme Mushinski
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président: Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr MikeColle (Oakwood L)
Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr SteveGilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)
Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)
Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr DavidTilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)
Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC)
Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
Clerk / Greffier: Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel: Ms Susan Klein, legislative counsel
The committee met at 1000 in committee room 1.
LOCAL CONTROL OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE CONTRÔLE LOCAL DES BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES
Consideration of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level / Projet de loi 109, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les bibliothèques publiques de façon à situer à l'échelon local les pouvoirs, la responsabilité et l'obligation de rendre compte concernant la fourniture et la gestion efficace des services locaux de bibliothèque.
The Chair (Mr David Tilson): I see a quorum. This is the standing committee on general government, which is reviewing Bill 109, an act to amend the Public Libraries Act. Today we are starting clause-by-clause. You have an agenda before you. I understand some members only received the amendments recently. I hope we can proceed this morning as scheduled. Unless I hear some complaints, we'll proceed accordingly.
The first item on the agenda is, I understand, Mr Gravelle's motion made in Thunder Bay which was deferred until today. Mr Gravelle, if you could perhaps read your motion again.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): The motion reads:
"Members of the standing committee on general government therefore recognize the importance of library services in all communities across Ontario and recommend to the minister that amendments to the legislation should be encouraged; amendments that will guarantee the continuation of library services in rural and northern Ontario and recognize that some provincial funding should be maintained in order to meet that goal."
If I may just reacquaint members of the committee with the resolution that was brought forward in Thunder Bay, the last stop on our public hearings of Bill 109. We brought it forward. I'm not sure that all the members who are present were there, so I'll just remind them.
It was the last day of hearings. It was a concern based upon the fact that in Thunder Bay a very clear message was being sent to us, that had been confirmed in previous stops, that although we feel strongly that funding needs to be maintained across the province in terms of some per-household grant in some form -- and our amendments to some degree will deal with that -- there was a need to get a sense of confidence from the committee itself, from all three parties, that there should be recognition that the northern and rural libraries across the province were going to suffer more greatly from the loss of provincial funding.
There were certainly examples given to us in the public hearings where the provincial grant, although it may in some cases be as small or 6% or 8% -- although may I say in some instances it is much higher -- even in instances where that was the case, the people who are running the libraries and library boards and the people in the community told us that it was pretty clear that unless some form of provincial funding was maintained, their libraries were threatened with closure.
We heard an example in Atikokan, where even with the situation being what it is right now, with cutbacks that have already taken place and with the future cutbacks anticipated, they would have to close for 11 weeks this coming summer.
Certainly if the minister is serious about maintaining equitable access to libraries, let alone keeping them open, I would hope this resolution would be something she would take seriously. I felt that bringing this resolution forward at the time would be a way for the committee to indicate its general support for the smaller and the northern and rural libraries.
You will recall that Mr Shea suggested at the time it might be deferred until now, suggested we might want to wait until we see the amendments. I have seen the amendments. I do not believe they reflect any sense of connection to this particular resolution. I don't think the government amendments reflect that. I will say I'm a bit disappointed, because Mr Shea indicated that perhaps if we waited until we got to clause-by-clause I would feel this was something that could be dealt with in a positive way.
It's very clear. The message was delivered very clearly that the rural and northern libraries are very much threatened in terms of their existence, that some form of provincial funding needs to be maintained. It was on that basis that I put forward the motion. I would hope we could receive full support for that as we start our day.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I appreciate the comments by Mr Gravelle. He accurately sums up the essence of the exchange in Port Arthur, although he may give it an interpretation slightly at variance with mine.
In essence, the facts are that we did suggest that we defer this motion for consideration today so we'd have a chance to take a look at amendments. It seemed to be precipitous to deal with it in Port Arthur. It was more appropriate to bring it here so the entire committee could be seized of the matter.
As we take a look at Mr Gravelle's motion, we note the phrase, "recommend to the minister that amendments to the legislation should be encouraged." Obviously, in that regard Mr Gravelle would be himself encouraged. He has seen amendments that have emerged as a result of the hearings, so I think that part of his motion has already been achieved.
The government goes on the circuit to hear the comments of Ontarians and welcomes their input -- not only welcomes, but expects and is very sensitive to that input. You will find there is a shift in some of the clauses that reflects input from the community, I think much to their advantage and their wish.
The second part that he speaks about is to guarantee the continuation of library services. There is no reason to suggest otherwise in this bill. If you take a look at the operation of libraries across Ontario, their relationship with the municipalities and their funding base, there was no evidence to suggest they would not continue.
Indeed, as you moved down to the last part of Mr Gravelle's motion, which talks about provincial funding, in many ways we remember that the library system -- and that was one where we got into some rather interesting and helpful discussions during the hearings -- will not only continue, but the minister has made it very clear that she wishes to give more attention to the structuring of the OLS in the future. From my own personal point of view, I welcome that. I think that's an area that will engage us in conversation for some time, hopefully in a very constructive way.
Funding is going to continue. Obviously, there will be some differences in terms of the dollar flow as we go through the Who Does What exercise. It was curious, for example -- we use Atikokan as a case in point -- that while it currently receives something in the order of a 6% grant, it was Mr Gravelle's own observations that 6% could be achieved through the use of fees and other funding mechanisms locally without creating any difficulty. So there he makes the case as adequately as does David Crombie in his panel that there can be a very fair and equal offsetting of costs with revenues.
With that in mind, the sense that there is to be a series of fearful budget cuts is seen simply not to be realistic. More than that, it was interesting that during the hearings no library boards came forward to present evidence that they had been informed clearly by their councils that their budgets were to be ended. All indicated, upon questioning, that they found there would be ways and means to generate additional revenues.
Some did exercise concern about the relationships with their councils. I'll speak to that a little later on as we go through clause-by-clause, because I think we have some other work before us in that regard.
For that reason, I have to conclude my comments by suggesting that Mr Gravelle's motion is probably one that has now been superseded by the amendments that were put forward by the government. I think the debate now should proceed to clause-by-clause and he should be comforted in that regard.
The Chair: I have a list. Mr Silipo.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I want to speak in support of this motion, and do so for a couple reasons. I am one of the members you referred to at the beginning who didn't get the amendments yesterday. I appreciate that was not done through anyone's fault, but I didn't get them until I walked in this morning.
Notwithstanding that, I'm certainly prepared to continue going through the process this morning, although if at times I ask you or the committee to slow down, it will be because of that, because I want to make sure I fully understand the motions that we have in front of us.
The Chair: We'll do our best, Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: On the motion, as I've had a chance to look quickly through the government amendments this morning, I think it behooves us to support Mr Gravelle's motion, because while there have been a number of amendments tabled by the government, as there have been by us and by the Liberal caucus, there is nothing of a substantive nature in those amendments that addresses the issues raised here. Oh, my amendments have just arrived, Mr Chair. There is nothing in here that substantially deals with the questions that are raised in Mr Gravelle's motion, dealing particularly with the continuation of library services in rural and northern Ontario and the issue of continuing funding.
I would say to the government members in particular that yes, they have made it clear that in the tradeoff that's going on, as they put it, between municipalities and the provincial government, the provincial level of funding to libraries will end, to be exchanged for some other responsibilities that the government will take on. I would say that is, in and of itself, the biggest reason why this should not be proceeded with, because we know already from the reaction even to the changed downloading process that municipalities are going to be getting less in the way of funding and there's not going to be an even tradeoff.
1010
I am not familiar with the numbers right across the province, but I suspect if there is a shortfall, as has been pointed out here in Metropolitan Toronto of some $347 million, when you put the whole puzzle together -- and this is part of that puzzle, as we know -- there inevitably will be a shortfall in rural and northern Ontario.
That means that at the end of the day, when municipalities turn around and try to make decisions about whether they're going to continue the present level of funding, let alone make any improvements to the library system they would now become responsible for under this bill if this bill passes, they won't quite have that flexibility; they won't quite have the same latitude that they have now. One of the things that will happen is that as municipalities get squeezed in having to look at a variety of costs, it's my fear and the fear of many who have been active in the library communities that the library system will be one of the areas that will suffer.
If that's what the government wants to see, then the government should at least be honest enough to say that, and to say it's prepared to see less funding for libraries. What appals me, quite frankly, is that the government pretends this is an even trade, yet the numbers we are seeing show very clearly that it won't be an even trade at the end of the day, and one of the systems, one of the services we'll lose is the library service.
For that reason alone, this motion needs to be supported and the present level of funding maintained in order that we can at least give the library system across the province an even chance to continue to exist and to continue to provide the good services that it provides.
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I have a question of Mr Shea. I want to make sure I understand clearly what he's saying to us. Mr Shea, you mentioned that funding will continue. Are you saying that the proposed legislation is providing the necessary funds for libraries to continue to operate more or less in the same way they're operating now?
The Chair: I have a list, Mr Sergio. Perhaps we could proceed.
Mr Sergio: I'm sorry?
The Chair: You may have other questions. There's a list after you, so perhaps you could ask your questions and Mr Shea could choose to answer or not answer your questions.
Mr Sergio: The fact is that I want to make some comment as well, once he answers the question.
The Chair: I'd prefer to listen to what you have to say. There's a list of speakers. If you could proceed.
Mr Sergio: I'll make my comments, if that's the case. I believe some of the funds that will be generated, which Mr Shea has addressed himself to, will not be coming from the provincial government. They will have to come from either user fees or a cut in services, as we already see in many libraries in Metro, including in my own area -- fewer hours, more charges for various books and stuff like that. This is a serious concern.
It's not that the people are fearful of cuts when they are not there. Actually, this is the main problem: The people are very fearful that because of the cuts, libraries will have to curtail either the number of books or hours of operations. This will have a very straight, direct effect, as we have been saying all along, on classroom education eventually, because if the kids in the classroom cannot get the information necessary on many subjects, that will be reflected in the classrooms.
I would say with all due respect that we just can't continue unloading on to the local municipality in the hope that the local municipality will continue to provide all the services that our people are enjoying now. We know that many municipalities, especially municipalities up north -- and I can appreciate and support the motion put forth by my colleague Mr Gravelle -- will be hit with millions and millions of dollars in cuts, and municipalities will have to decide on a priority basis where they are going to spend those dollars, especially those that won't be forthcoming any more.
When the provincial government keeps on cutting all over the place and says to the municipalities, "Now it's your responsibility. How you're going to do it, we don't care. Where you're going to get the funds, we don't care. How long you're going to open the library, we don't care. What you're going to keep in the library, we don't care. We'll leave it up to you," I think the provincial government really is not maintaining the responsibility towards the people that it should. I believe it's totally wrong.
I do believe that members of the government believe it's wrong, but because they want to toe the government's party line, they will support the legislation as put forth by the government. It's most unfortunate. But I hope they will find enough common sense to support the motion put forth by Mr Gravelle, because it makes sense. It hits right at home because it says here that without provincial support, many of the services will not be able to be provided.
I do hope the government members will be able to support the motion.
Mr Gravelle: I certainly appreciate the comments of Mr Silipo and Mr Sergio. They show a real sensitivity to what I think the problem is. In terms of Mr Shea, it was made very clear to us. I've got letters upon letters here from public library boards that express in no uncertain terms that they've done their investigations, they've talked to the councillors. They recognize there's no question that municipal councils will not make up for the lost money, the money that's taken away, and in fact will have some real difficulty maintaining the funding level they're at because of the downloading reality that's facing all the municipalities in the province.
I've got letters from the Kitchener Public Library, the Bruce County Public Library, the Ignace, Atikokan, Geraldton and Beardmore libraries in northern Ontario. What they've made clear is that regardless of the percentage, there is a need to maintain some provincial support. Mr Shea, when he was talking about the minister's involvement in the library service, was not talking about funding. I'm sure he'll clarify that for Mr Sergio. He was not talking about funding for individual libraries, the per-household grants that have been in place.
It's just that the message comes across loud and clear. I really don't know how the minister, with this bill, can try to have it both ways. The fact is you can't talk about equal access, you can't talk about maintaining libraries if the message is coming out loud and clear that libraries -- which have already been severely cut, as have so many other services in the last two years. If they're going to be really severely cut, how they can be maintained?
If the message we're getting is that this support is needed and some recognition and involvement of the minister and ministry is needed, how this cannot be an acceptable motion, to have some form of provincial funding support in place to at least give the libraries that are truly threatened -- the fact is, somewhere down the line, if this doesn't happen, the minister and this government will be held accountable for that. If these libraries cannot stay open, they'll be held accountable. They may try to shift the responsibility or the blame on the municipalities, but they won't be able to get away with it, because people are watching this very closely.
The message is loud and clear. Whether it's 6%, 8% or in some cases up to 50% in some of the smaller libraries -- and I know Mr Shea recognizes that is the case -- there is an incredible need to understand that some form of provincial funding needs to be maintained in order to maintain the existence of many libraries, certainly maintain the viability of some of them.
As I said, if the minister wishes through this bill to talk about equity of access and people having the freedom to get what they need from the library, then she needs and this committee needs to take some action, which could be resolved by supporting this motion.
1020
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm pleased to participate in this particular broad view of Mr Gravelle's motion.
Just to give a bit of background, I spent a number of years on library boards locally, on two different occasions in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and then I was on a provincial and a regional library service as well for the automation of libraries, because that was my background. I've seen it grow and change and become much more efficient over time.
I think that's a very important part of it. When I put that together with the current intent of this particular bill, it's in the broader sense to allow municipalities to deliver the priority services they see are appropriate to their communities. In some places today the services and their priorities will change because of the funding arrangement. But you've got to remember that the province is taking some $3 billion off the municipal taxpayer in terms of education funding and delivering to it other services.
I believe those municipalities will look at this disentanglement exercise and refocus their priorities. I believe libraries and educational facilities will be a lot more cooperative in the future. Libraries and community libraries play a very important role. I have five children, so I know the importance of them. The schools themselves and the school academic libraries need to be part of the long-range solution. I'm sure the librarians, the professionals themselves, are working in that direction. Without some necessity to reinvent themselves, that won't occur.
The most important signal, I heard Minister Mushinski say -- and I talked to her personally on this, and my own chief librarian, Cynthia Mearns, has been in direct communication with her responses to this bill and her particular recommendations. They wanted the autonomy away from their municipal councils so that those citizens, those volunteer boards -- and, Mr Gravelle, from what you've been talking about, they've been arguing for many years about getting their fair share of the recreational dollars. There's this argument about whether they'll build more arenas or more libraries. That's what the minister said: "We're going to leave the library boards at arm's length from the municipalities so they're not just a department." Those communities will rethink and reinvent themselves in terms of delivering library service.
The minister has also left in place a very important infrastructure piece, which is the whole interlibrary loan system, which is a requirement with the shortage of resources, and the ONET, the network system -- which may not be a great service to the north at the moment, but I know there's a commitment to have digital services available in the north in the next period of time. I think the federal government is doing something in that area, which is the new view of library service: on-line access and perhaps book reserves.
I think this bill moves us forward. The particular amendments and the wording in the legislation as it exists, without reference to any part of the province, is the right thing to do. Yes, the province has to still be there supporting access to library service for books for the general public.
I won't be supporting your resolution. I don't think it's the right thing to do. I just gave you some backdrop to this particular interpretation of the bill as I see it.
Mr Shea: I appreciate the interventions of Mr Silipo, Mr Sergio and particularly Mr Gravelle, who travelled on the committee and listened to a number of comments both from librarians and representatives of library boards as well as municipalities.
The debate is engaged at that point where you talk about the relationship between libraries and municipalities and even the role of government in terms of individual libraries versus the province-wide strategy that might be employed to nurture the library system across this province. That's where a good part of the debate today will focus, and we'll come back to that over and over again.
I will do my best to help Mr Sergio grapple with the budgets and budget implications of Who Does What and so forth, because I still have consummate hope that he will once again put on his councillor's hat and will understand the significance of the bill that's before us today. I know he will; I have hope that he will and I will do what I can today to help him in that regard.
In that sense, there is a very clear understanding in the bill that in the Who Does What process, as my colleague Mr O'Toole has pointed out, there has been a shift of dollars as the province assumes responsibility for education costs, so other costs are transferred back on to the municipalities. It is meant to be revenue-neutral.
There will be a debate -- not just here; there will be a debate in the House; it'll be a debate everywhere about whether it has in fact been revenue-neutral. My colleague Mr Silipo refers to $347 million that he purports could be an outflow from Metropolitan Toronto. I challenge that figure significantly. In fact, when the dust all settles, the immediate reports that I keep hearing are that province-wide, the uploading on the province could be in the order of $3 million or more. So at least the reports are that we have come to a point of revenue neutrality, and that's good news for us all.
Therein lies the debate of whether the province should continue to not only go through the exercise of Who Does What, but also continue to intervene in the affairs of municipalities. That, of course, is really counter to the Bill 26 spirit and I would think it is repugnant to most municipal councillors, who would say, "If we are significant partners and in some ways equal partners in the governance of this province, we have responsibilities and accountabilities" -- I think Mr Gravelle used that word, rightfully -- "so we want to be held accountable and we have to ensure that we're not fettered by other activities by the province."
Interestingly enough, with regard to the bill that is before us now, the chairman of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario not only welcomed the change, but made it very clear that in his opinion budgets would not change in terms of the support to library systems. That's good news, and he made that statement on more than one occasion.
We might also remind ourselves that the provincial funding that will go to individual libraries doesn't mean to say that individual libraries are cut off from other avenues of support. Case in point: the transition funding which will be in place to provide some assistance. Municipalities may very well choose to exercise their access for those kinds of programs where necessary.
I really can't leave my education of Mr Sergio too quickly without referring to at least two points that he raised in his intervention that I appreciate and with which I differ. He suggests that the libraries will be left to the variances and verities of the property tax, and that's true. That's what accountability is all about. As a former councillor he knows what's that all about, and as a former councillor he knows that there's no one on a council who sits by and willfully says, "Let's trash the library board," as opposed to something else. He knows from his own experience that most, if not all, municipal representatives consider the library system an extremely important part of their municipality. He knows that. He knows they should have reasonable access to the funding base of the municipality.
Where there may be user fees charged to provide some additional revenue flows for the library, I put it to him that there are user fees currently being charged right now and there may well be an expansion of some areas. But to suggest that this act is allowing people to say, "We don't care where you get the money from," that we have suddenly cut off the libraries and there will now be a raid by the libraries on their constituencies in terms of user fees is simply misrepresenting and distorting the reality.
The fact is we do care, and as Mr Sergio reads the act -- I know he has -- he knows that this act very carefully circumscribes the areas in which fees may be charged. It precisely precludes areas from being charged, and he knows that; I know he does. I know he would read that with the sensitivity of a former councillor. I know he would watch that with a hawk eye and he would discover that this act is being very carefully crafted to ensure that there is maintenance of the system that this provincial government and all local governments hold very dear. I want to make sure that's very clear and it's placed on the record for us to understand.
1030
In terms of the intervention by my good friend Mr Gravelle, he rightfully points out that on a number of occasions representatives of library boards came forward to express profound fear. He may rightfully, as the day proceeds, point out that a number of library boards came forward to express in some cases -- and there was one name that he used in his litany that I don't want to repeat again -- distress if not disregard for their relationship with their council.
One can always encourage the councillors to get library cards, and that may ameliorate some of their relationship, but I'm not naming any names, out of courtesy to them. I suggest that he would agree with me that not one library board came forward with any documentation to show that the council had said, "You're toast." Not one library board came forward to say they had evidence from their council that their funds would be ended. Not one library board came forward to say that the council had told them there was no way to make up any differential in the provincial grants, and in many cases the provincial grant, with the exception of some that are at an extreme end of the scale, may be 15% of their total revenue or significantly less. I mentioned Atikokan being 6% as a case in point.
We're not talking about a situation here where one can argue that this is now hanging on by fingertips and this is the end of the day for libraries; quite the reverse. This is an opportunity now, with this bill, to pick up on the word I think both Mr Sergio and Mr Gravelle used, and that is "accountability." The fact is that in the development of the provincial strategy and certainly in terms of the system, the province has a very significant role to play, and I am persuaded the minister will be true to that responsibility.
In terms of individual libraries, at least in this case Mr Sergio, putting on his former councillor's hat, will know he joined me in the past in saying to the province, "Get out of our face and let us do what we should be doing." Mr Sergio was there saying that in other circumstances and I know he believes that. I know he believes to this day that there are places where we have to separate the functions, and that's the beauty of this bill. It is true to the spirit of Bill 26. It ensures that we're saying: "This is a municipal responsibility; you deal with that. This is our responsibility provincially; we will deal with that."
To ensure there's the ease of transition, there is a transition fund the province puts in place so that municipalities may make adjustments so there is no dramatic impact upon budgets and so forth. So in that regard I hope I have addressed the initial concerns of my colleagues. If there are others, I know they'll come up during the clause-by-clause discussions. On behalf of the minister, I have to tell you I value their interventions. I appreciate it and I hope I have given them cause for some reassurance.
Mr Gravelle: I would like to make a few comments that relate to what Mr Shea said and some to what Mr O'Toole said as well. The truth is that Mr Shea is correct. No library board came before us and said, "We have absolute, irrefutable evidence that says it's going to close." But what they have is, and these are communities where the councillors and library boards all work closely together -- a lot of them were smaller communities -- they know the councillor, they've had their discussions. Some of them have had semi-formal discussions. I got letters since then that confirm that. The evidence is very clear that they were told informally by the mayor or reeve, "Don't expect this." So there's no question that they expressed a great deal of fear for a very, very good reason.
When we get into the whole question of the downloading and everything else and the fact that the government insists it's revenue-neutral, I would be delighted if the government side would propose an amendment to my motion, if indeed they're wrong and the process is not revenue-neutral, that they would guarantee some form of funding to libraries. Because we're talking about libraries. The fact is, and I don't think anybody really is being fooled by this, that this bill truly is part of the process of abandoning provincial responsibility for a public library system. There is absolutely no question about it.
You talk about provincial accountability. We have some amendments we put forward that I look forward to your supporting which entrench to some degree the minister's responsibility and accountability in the public library process, because if you look at it, there's nothing, legislatively, that guarantees the ministry is going to retain any accountability.
The sad thing, and what has maybe been lost in this bill and in terms of the government's whole approach, is the fact that public libraries actually in the last couple of years have been moving to be more and more part of a provincial resource. They've been moving in a direction of recognition that they are part of a provincial resource. All municipalities gain from that. Limiting this bill and their vision for a library network to public libraries is shortsighted, to not take advantage of it, to not recognize that this process should continue. If the government really wanted increased efficiency or cost-effectiveness and better service, it would not be pushing libraries deeper into the local communities, putting those pressures on the municipalities which really are not fair.
Mr O'Toole talked about the interlibrary loan system. That system is going to absolutely fall apart and be under attack because it will simply not be able to be maintained unless there is some guarantee of libraries being able to continue to maintain a certain level of funding. The program costs money.
The thing is, libraries should be moving towards being a provincial resource. That's where they belong. Municipalities have always had a very solid, consistent support for their libraries, and proudly so, but the fact is that provincial involvement has been a very important part of the public library system. What we're seeing with this bill is the end of that system. In terms of the precise provincial funding needs, there's no doubt it will be nice to have some guarantee that at least the minister would say that if indeed a situation exists where municipalities are not able to afford to maintain the library system as it is, some provincial funding would be guaranteed.
I hope Mr Shea, his colleagues and the minister would respond to that, if indeed a system sets up, so that when a library in any part of the province closes because the municipalities are not in a position to maintain the level of support that's needed, the province would be willing to come in and say, "We will provide some access to public provincial funding." Ideally they should maintain it on the basis that that's where it belongs.
This motion will not succeed. The government is going to vote against it. I think it's really important for us to make it very clear that it's needed and it's one of the issues at the forefront of the whole discussion today in clause-by-clause. I appreciate this isn't an amendment, but I hope the minister, if she's sincere about wanting libraries to remain open and accessible, would consider this motion.
Mr Sergio: Just briefly -- because I think we want to get on with the business at hand; we have a good number of people here today and they will want to watch the proceedings of our committee -- Let me say for a second, going back and putting on my hat of 16 years as a councillor, that local councils are very effective when it comes to delivering service to the local community. There are two differentials here. One is the delivery of those services, the administration, and the other one is funding. I'm saying, and Mr Shea knows this very well because he has been through that, especially now with Metro and the blessed new city, that those services will not be available unless, as he says, some new charges, user fees are applied. This will have a direct effect on the tax system.
Local councils will have to decide eventually somewhere along the road to maintain the local swimming pool, the wading pool, gyms for the kids, skating rinks, other services, versus cutting services in the library. That's what it comes down to. It's got nothing to do with the local council and stuff like that. Local councils, as responsible as they are, will have to decide. Now that the representation is even more removed from the local community, it will be harder to fight for that local library or the local board and say, "No, we must maintain all these services." But when the local council is faced with a number of other most important requests such as, "What are we going to do, are we going to charge kids now for jumping on the ice for one hour of free skating or are we going to charge for using the summer pool?" what is going to be first?
1040
I would like to go back and have Mr Shea think like a local councillor over those days when the local council has to make those decisions and say: "Well, are we going to curtail the hours now? Are we closed on Sunday, period, or are we going to close at 3 o'clock, or are we going to close at 1 o'clock in the afternoon so we don't charge those kids $1 to use the local pool?" That's the problem. We know all that can be accomplished if the local council will say, "Oh, let's raise taxes or let's increase from $2 to $5, whatever." Of course they can accomplish that. Does it mean that's responsible, accountable? I don't think so. I think we have to weigh both. Even at the local level you have to weigh those situations because the local council, the local councillor, does not have to look solely after the local library. Let's face it, let's be honest: They're accountable for a myriad of other things.
I can appreciate his explanation. He's quite correct on many points, but I think unless the government continues its financial support, I have to say that either user fees will skyrocket or services will have to diminish. I hope they will support the motion.
Mr Shea: To conclude, because I think we just have to make sure we point out two things, let me deal with Mr Sergio's intervention first. That's the easiest one. In terms of user fees and how municipalities may very well deal with their revenue stream and so forth, Mr Sergio, for example, has given a litany of possibilities, that one might charge for skating rinks and so forth. Mr Sergio himself will recall that's precisely what happens in Mississauga and a number of areas right now. That's not with the Who Does What in place or anything else.
Mr Sergio would remember the city of Toronto has dealt with the hours of rinks as another way, an option of dealing with its revenue stream. Mr Sergio, being a fine representative from the North York municipality, will know that even today in the paper the mayor of that municipality is talking about user fees in the area of recycling. So he's aware that municipalities already have that authority and indeed deal with that in a very careful fashion, as they would in any other fashion, even if it were to involve the libraries.
In terms of Mr Gravelle's intervention, I want to respond very quickly to just two points because they deal with some of the fundamental aspects of the bill that's before us. First of all, to suggest that this bill represents an abandoning of responsibility by the provincial government for the library system is something I simply can't leave in the minutes without at least being addressed. I totally disagree with that; quite the reverse. I think the government is taking the exemplary and very forwarding-looking approach to the province by trying to disengage the confusion that's existed in the areas of governance and responsibilities. I think it's trying to make it very clear now for Ontarians and for ratepayers who does what, who is responsible for what, so that all of us can in a clearer fashion begin to hold it accountable for the services that are delivered.
Finally, there was an interesting sidebar Mr Gravelle referred to that I have to at least expose and address very quickly. He started to segue into his comments by suggesting that in the last few years the library system and certainly, in part of that, individual libraries have grown to be increasingly, in his opinion, a provincial resource. Indeed they are. But he leaves the impression that if he were in government he would take away the libraries and give them a totally provincial funding base. He gives that impression. I don't think he means to do that, but if he does he might wish to surface that, to say yes, that's what they would do. Municipalities might like to make some comments in that regard as well.
I don't want to leave that unaddressed, because the government views both the individual libraries and the total system as an important, intrinsic provincial resource. It is one that is now in partnership, engaged with the municipalities, by suggesting that at this level, in the individual levels, that is an area where the municipalities themselves will carry responsibility. They will have carriage of the responsibility, the care and nurturing of their library system in their municipality, and for the overall system the province will assume its full responsibility for that as well. There is a transition fund that is maintained and to which municipalities may apply for the appropriate shifting of responsibilities as that occurs. That's the final part of my intervention of our preamble, Chair.
Mr Gravelle: I'm wondering who's going to get the last word here, because I have to respond. After all, it is my motion. Mr Shea is being a bit too cute by half, I think, certainly in terms of my reference to provincial resources. The fact is that I was basically speaking to what I see as the abandonment of the provincial responsibility through this bill, and I do see it that way. Obviously it can be a provincial resource. I certainly wasn't implying that the province should be paying 100% of the funding, because municipalities have always played a very significant role in public libraries in terms of the funding and the line-by-line accounting for it, and municipalities obviously maintain it.
I was talking in terms of the fact that this bill removes in almost every way any provincial accountability at all, as far as I'm concerned. That is really what I was talking about. In the sense of it becoming a provincial resource, we agree that it is. I certainly wasn't making any reference to what the funding should be other than the fact that the province needs to maintain at least the percentage of funding they've got. As you know, libraries have sustained very serious provincial cuts in the last two or three years, and serious cuts that they've managed to make extraordinary adjustments to but that have made it more difficult to maintain the quality of service. But the library boards and municipalities have maintained support for them.
It's this last part of taking it away that is going to be so extraordinarily damaging. You can talk all you want about municipal disentanglement, as you put it, of the downloading. The fact is that we'd sure like to see the figures. If you want to talk about the transitional funds, I think it would be very useful, although this is not the answer, to have some one-time funding to help libraries out on a short-term basis, because the answer is to maintain some provincial funding support, which is what my motion is about.
The fact is that if the minister is going to talk about a transitional fund, it would probably be important to have a separate portion, a separate part, not part of the fund, that is dedicated to the library system, especially if we see libraries being forced to close because municipalities cannot simply sustain all the services they need to sustain.
We could carry this on, obviously, for some time longer. If Mr Shea wants to respond to this, that's fine. I'll probably feel I have to respond again. I think quite simply the fact is that it would be an extraordinary show of support for the government members to recognize, as I think they do, that provincial support at a financial level may absolutely be needed to maintain the library system as they say they want to maintain it. If they were to do so, I think that would probably make an extraordinary difference in how our day goes.
The Chair: Further debate? Mr Gravelle, you appear to have had the last word. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
We now appear to be ready to proceed with clause-by-clause. I appreciate that some members have only recently received their package and we'll try to move reasonably slowly to accommodate them. I'm going to be referring to numbers. I assume you have the package with numbers at the top right corner. The first proposed amendment is by the Liberal caucus on page 1, which is a proposed amendment to section 1. Mr Gravelle, if you could give your rationale and read the motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that the definition of "minister" in section 1 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"`Minister' means the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation."
I think this speaks to one of the concerns we have and a theme that may recur during the day: We want it to be very clear that we do not want the responsibility for what responsibility is left in terms of libraries to be shifted to another minister. We believe that the Minister of Culture, formally the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, at this stage needs to be named in the bill. What we do see obviously is that because the user fees and the regulations are done under the Municipal Act, therefore we see the potential for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to be deemed as the minister responsible. That would be something I'm sure nobody would want to have happen. I think it's absolutely crucial that it just be defined that we mean the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.
1050
One recognizes that titles of ministers occasionally change as governments make decisions in terms of departments. I think the clear implication of this is that this is the present title of the minister responsible, and it would be a good idea to simply clarify that. I can't imagine that anybody would have any problems with us doing that, in that this is the minister who is indeed responsible.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): As the member opposite knows full well, it's extraordinarily difficult to change a bill, and it would require first, second and third reading to ever make an amendment in the future. Every government of three different stripes has changed the title of the minister responsible for libraries over the last 15 years. Clearly the way it is defined in the act allows far more leeway, far greater opportunity to make those minor changes to title without changing the delineation of responsibility. It would be extraordinarily inappropriate to force that amount of wasted time in the Legislature in the future to make a change attendant to any title change in the future. I will not be supporting this motion.
Mr Silipo: Mr Gilchrist may think that it's a waste of time to be clear in the bill about which minister should be responsible for the public library system, but I don't. I think it's incumbent upon the government to be clear in legislation, at least at the present time, subject to changes, and that's always within the purview of the government to do. But it's incumbent upon the government to be clear about which minister they are assigning the responsibility to, not just of the bill but obviously of the system that's covered under the bill, in this case the public library system. So I support the amendment.
I should also point out that I believe it's possible for governments to change -- this is not about changing the name of the minister or the title of the minister. Once the responsibilities for an act are assigned to one minister, I believe it's possible by a cabinet order for that responsibility to be shifted to another minister, so it doesn't preclude the government still having the latitude to make those shifts if that's what they want to do.
But until they do that, and unless they do that, I think it's incumbent for the legislation that covers the Public Libraries Act to clearly have designated within it, as the present act does, a minister who is responsible for it. If the government wants to change that, they should put that in the legislation now to indicate that they want to move it to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if that's what they want to do. If they don't want to do that, they should leave that part of the act as it is.
The Chair: Further debate?
Mr Sergio: Just one question. We have very qualified staff here. I wonder if they can tell us if the government can do it by a single regulation or if they need 15 years of approval, as we heard from Mr Gilchrist. I wonder if the government can do it by simple regulation.
The Chair: Mr Shea, can you assist us?
Mr Shea: My understanding is that if it's in the act, you have to proceed with the appropriate steps to change it, and that is a very cumbersome way to proceed, as my colleague Mr Gilchrist has pointed out.
Mr Sergio: Can we hear from staff, Mr Chair?
Mr Shea: That would be leg counsel, I would think, who would want to respond.
The Chair: I'll accept anybody.
Ms Susan Klein: If the minister is defined in the act to be a specific minister, the government can none the less assign the responsibility for the legislation to any other minister by an order in council. But the problem that was raised does exist. You've got a name in the act that is no longer the name of the minister, so if you want to change the act -- for example, if in two years there's an amendment to one section of the act -- then it's awkward because you've got references all over to the minister -- no, you don't have references all over. Sorry. You can change it by order in council, you can assign it to another minister, but you're left with a statute on the statute books with this name in it.
Mr Sergio: If I get it right, the government can indeed do it by regulation.
Ms Klein: By order in council, under the Executive Council Act.
Mr Gravelle: Obviously, regardless of whether it's cumbersome or whether it's difficult, I think it's important to have the title of the minister in there. The fact is that unless something's happening as of this afternoon, it's the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation who is the minister of this bill. I think it should be said and it's important.
I won't pretend. There are concerns that there may be plans to sort of change things around in a way that we would find offensive and very wrong, and that's part of the reason I think it's important to put it in there. But aside from all that, it's just something that seems to me should be there. It's the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation who is the minister; therefore, it should be in the bill regardless of whatever difficulties there might be in changing it. That's something that could be dealt with down the line. The important thing now is to clarify that this minister is responsible for this piece of legislation.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 2, a government motion.
Mr Shea: As members will know, this really is a technical amendment. It grew out of our hearings around London. I don't think there's any debate about this one at all. It's one to simply address a concern for the county of Oxford.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Carried.
Shall section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? I declare the section carried.
Page 3 is a Liberal motion proposing an amendment to section 2.
Mr Gravelle: Certainly the members who were travelling with the committee on public hearings will note that one of the reasonably common elements was that it was good to have a mission statement in the --
Mr Sergio: You have to read the motion.
Mr Gravelle: Oh, I've got to read the motion?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sergio. Yes, please.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 2 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Purposes
"2(1) The purposes of this act are to recognize and support the role and importance of public libraries in Ontario communities and to make the Ontario government responsible and accountable for the upkeep of equity of access standards across the province to ensure that all Ontarians, regardless of ability to pay or place of residence, continue to have access to excellent public library services and to core public library services which will be provided free of charge.
"Same
"(2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), this act has the following purposes:
"1. To ensure that public libraries continue to succeed in providing services in their communities.
"2. To ensure that every Ontarian has a right to equitable access to information through their public libraries.
"3. To support Ontarians' requirements for access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society committed to the values of lifelong learning.
"4. To allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial, national and global information through a province-wide network.
"5. To maintain provincial responsibility and accountability for achieving the purposes set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4."
The Chair: We now have a motion on the floor. Mr Gravelle, you may --
Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much. We've got to do this right, don't we, Mr Chair?
The Chair: Yes, and I need your assistance.
Mr Gravelle: As I was saying earlier, before it was appropriate to say so, there is a mission statement or a preamble in this bill as it is written now. In many cases, and I certainly will be happy to say this, many of the presenters appreciated the intent of that opening statement or preamble, "This act has the following purposes...."
However, I think it's very important that perhaps we simply add to that a tad and put in some measure of clarity in terms of the act itself to quite frankly recognize the provincial accountability, which again I think is lacking in some parts of this bill. The government side talks about the accountability and yet it's not in the bill. This particular first paragraph that I read certainly gets that in there.
1100
Also in (2), where we are in essence following the format of the draft legislation, we've made some changes. For example, in paragraph 1, "To ensure public libraries continue to successfully provide," we think it would be useful to change it to, "To ensure that public libraries continue to succeed...." I think that would be useful to do that.
In paragraph 4 which we've got here, paragraph 3 in the bill, "To allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial, national and global information...." we've added the word "national" in there. We think it's useful to talk about access to the national system, and certainly the other systems across the country are ones that need to be accessed. It can't be any problem putting that in there. One has to wonder why it wasn't in there.
Paragraph 5 in the Liberal motion, "To maintain provincial responsibility and accountability for achieving the purposes set out in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4," just simply again restates the need for provincial accountability.
I guess the point is in essence that we think it's crucial, in light of some of the things that are in this bill, that the minister's rhetoric matches the reality. The minister does maintain some responsibility, and the ministry. If you're going to talk about what you want the system to be, I think it's important to state it in perhaps a more detailed, a more clear way. Our party's amendment does that without, I think, making any particular wording that the government or the minister would find uncomfortable. The fact is it simply puts into the legislation what we're hearing from the government side whenever they speak to this issue. So putting those words into the legislation itself hopefully will be supported by all three parties.
Mr Silipo: I want to speak in favour of this. We have an amendment that's similar which we will obviously put if this one isn't carried, although I'd be happy to support this because I think both amendments try to achieve the same objective, which is to clarify in the legislation, as Mr Gravelle has said, that there need to be some basic protections and some assurances that the public library systems will continue to be present, and particularly that the provincial government continues to carry a responsibility. This I think is the point made particularly in the last paragraph, under 2(2)5, and which our amendment also suggests, which picks up on one of the suggestions made by the Ontario Library Trustees' Association that part of the purposes should be to define the role of the provincial government in all of this.
It's clear that in this particular part of the bill it's incumbent that we be clear about the need for the system to continue to exist, but also for the government to continue to play a role in that system. This is key to the following sections of the bill because this is at least a guide in legislation to what the relative responsibilities should be.
We believe that something like the public library system of this province is not something that should be devolved completely to the local municipalities. While we understand that local municipalities by and large have a significant role and play a significant role and should continue to play that role because they are best suited to respond to local needs, that does not and should not detract from the overarching provincial role that should be there to ensure there is a good, strong, healthy, viable public library system across the province that involves continuing funding.
We have some amendments to deal with that later on that involve ensuring there is a structure in place that allows for a majority of citizens to continue to be on the boards -- we have an amendment dealing with that later on -- and a system that continues to be essentially free of any user fees for the basic services that today, in our view, include not just the borrowing of books but also the borrowing of other materials, which we are troubled to see the government move away from as it is moving away from that principle.
We think it's important in this particular section of the act, which is the first substantive section after the definitions, to be clear about the variety of responsibilities that should be there that the province needs to continue to be responsible for in the basic purposes of the act, which is to ensure that public libraries continue to function, continue to provide the good services that we have had in this province since the current system came into place well over 100 years ago, and that this should continue. I support this amendment because it strives to do that.
Mr Shea: I understand what my colleagues are suggesting, but I put it to them that the purposes section is already comprehensive; indeed it is perhaps more comprehensive than they would wish. The reason it maintains a very general approach is that the government understands and anticipates significant changes in the world of information and the way that's disseminated. In fact it is appropriate to leave the widest possible room to manoeuvre for libraries and other agencies in our communities. For that reason, not that I have any personal disagreement with the suggestions made by my colleague, I think the purposes statement the government has put in the bill is more than adequate.
Mr Gravelle: In that I see a ray of hope here in Mr Shea not disagreeing with what's in here. Just responding ever so quickly to what he's saying, the fact is that there is nothing in this amendment that in any way would affect the changes that are taking place in terms of the library system. I think they're very much the same issues as in the draft legislation. This simply clarifies them and makes the accountability issue more clearly put in place. In that the government and yourself, Mr Shea, and the minister keep proudly stating that provincial accountability from your point of view, it seems to me that putting this in here would simply make it easier for you to justifiably say that indeed that's where it is; it's in the legislation.
Mr Shea: Far be it from me to dash rays of hope. That is not why I'm here -- quite the reverse -- but it is in fact to encourage hope where hope is justified and appropriate. Indeed in that sense I can give my colleague great hope by knowing that I think what the purposes section does right now is to address exactly what he wants it to address. It may not be as precise as he would like in some specific areas. I think he will ultimately come to say that was probably a very wise thing, because the government then leaves significant room for adjustments in the 21st century.
Mr Gravelle: I don't agree.
The Chair: All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
We will move to a New Democratic motion, which is on page 5.
Mr Silipo: I move that section 2 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following paragraph:
"4. To define the role of the provincial government in ensuring that all Ontarians will have access to information resources through public libraries which are interconnected and networked."
If I may speak to it briefly, this was something that was suggested to the committee during the hearings, as I mentioned earlier, by the Ontario Library Trustees' Association and I believe also the Township of Osgoode Public Library board. I think the essential point that it does is to add to the purposes section something that is quite frankly missing from the three points the government has put into the bill, which is defining the role of the provincial government in making sure that all Ontarians will have access to information resources through the individual libraries but also through libraries which, as the amendment suggests, are interconnected and networked.
I would just say to the government members that this is one that I hope they can support, because while I would say that it's crucial for that role of the government to be there, set out in the purposes clause, I can give them some comfort that even if what they believe the role of the provincial government to be is minimal, which I think is what their bill will do because it will minimize greatly the role of provincial government, it is more honest at least to have in the purposes clause something that says this bill has as one of its purposes to define what that role is.
I'm not sure that's the way that people who suggested it to us intended it to be. I think they wanted to see a strong role, as I do, for the provincial government. But the way the words are, they can also be read fairly neutrally. I would suggest to my colleagues opposite that this is one that they should support because there is nothing in the purposes section as they have put it out that in fact talks about the role of the provincial government and this bill defining those responsibilities and that role.
1110
Mr Shea: Just very quickly, again the comments are much an echo of my comments to Mr Gravelle. The essence of what my colleague Mr Silipo wants to achieve is contained in the bill that's placed before us right now. Paragraph 3 refers to "access to local, provincial and global information" and speaks about a "province-wide public library network." I think that's part of his thought there. Indeed, the bill goes beyond just provincial, as he notes, and I think that augurs well for the future. It leaves significant wiggle room in the future for governments to adjust to changing technologies and realities in this province, whatever they may be, and at this point we can merely conjecture. I think the purposes statement is probably best as it is at this point.
Mr Gravelle: Certainly I want to support Mr Silipo's NDP motion as well. I find it difficult to understand why the government cannot support this. You're talking about needing wiggle room. This simply clarifies an important point in terms of the whole library network and the system and the interconnection and the networking, which is terribly important and there are some fears about it. This simply works into the preamble as an addition.
I'm disappointed that you obviously did not feel that you could support the earlier amendment related to this, but I'm glad to see that the NDP has put in a motion that helps as well in that regard. I would hope quite frankly that you would see no problem with this. This is something that simply needs to be in there. It's something that obviously the library community has alerted us to, that this is something that needs to be put in and will help in terms of the overall purposes. It seems rather startling that you wouldn't have some comfort actually in agreeing to support that.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 6, which is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following as section 2.1 of the Public Libraries Act:
"Minister's responsibilities
"2.1 The minister shall,
"(a) ensure the continued existence and operation of the southern and northern Ontario library service organizations that are in existence on the day this section comes into force;
"(b) ensure the continuation of interlibrary loan programs and the continuation or establishment of other initiatives to strengthen Ontario's public libraries;
"(c) establish a process for municipalities or public library boards to seek assistance for the capital and operating costs of their public libraries to ensure their continued existence and operation;
"(d) recognize the distinct needs of public libraries of all sizes and resolve to uphold equity of access standards across the province;
"(e) ensure provincial responsibility for maintaining community linkage to the province-wide public library network."
This is certainly an amendment that I think is a necessary one and one that again clarifies the role of the minister. The fact is that the draft legislation outlines no provincial role in Ontario library operations and this clause legislatively outlines specific responsibilities for the minister, and I think that's important.
In anticipating some concerns that might be expressed by the parliamentary assistant, certainly I could speak to each section, but I won't, because I think some of them are pretty clear and they are sensible for the minister to be involved with. But certainly clause (c), establishing a process where municipalities can apply for provincial dollars, truly does feed into the reality that we have some concerns, and may I say more than concerns -- I truly am being polite this morning -- real fear that municipalities will be in a position where they will not be able to maintain the level of services in a variety of areas, and certainly that will be the case in libraries.
We still think there should be some provincial openings, some provincial funding opportunity that's very specific. The minister has spoken of this -- I think Mr Shea will confirm that -- in at least one setting, that indeed she may need to set up a process very specifically for certain libraries -- certainly she spoke in terms of the small and northern and rural -- a system whereby libraries that cannot exist can set up some process where they can seek provincial funding of some sort simply to maintain their existence, which of course would then just feed into what the purposes of the act are supposed to be.
I would hope that this amendment will be accepted. Again it deals in an overall sense with provincial responsibility, specifically the minister's responsibility because we think that's crucial -- whoever the minister of the day is should be involved -- but it speaks to the concern we have that the bill in essence removes all provincial accountability and provincial responsibility. We think it's important that this be clarified in the legislation. Again, if the government wants to match its rhetoric with action, it will, I would think, accept this amendment.
Mr Shea: I don't want to get into a rhetorical debate with my colleague, and I don't think we need to. The fact is that, as he takes a look at most of the legislation right now, he will note that OLS is already an important part of the provincial role. It doesn't need to be spelled out in this sense and certainly not where this is being proposed. We're doing everything that is contained in this motion with the exception of clause (3), which requests funding. That is of course in complete contradiction of the thrust of the bill, which is to ensure that Who Does What is put in place across the province. In fact, the provincial funding is one thing that will move towards one level of the services in this province while funding for public libraries, the local branches, will flow from another source. That's what the whole exercise has been about. In this regard I regretfully can't support the motion because in fact it's already contained in the bill.
Mr Gravelle: First of all, just in terms of the precise clause (c), it doesn't ask for funding; it talks about establishing a process, which the minister has talked about. She certainly has spoken in some quarters about this, so I don't think that should be a barrier. It doesn't ask for funding; it talks about establishing a process. I see the minister's aide talking to you and I'm sure he's just confirming that indeed the minister has spoken about that. That is quite different, so it's not an actual money provision.
The fact is that these are services that basically are aspects of library service that the minister and the government talk about wanting to maintain. Therefore for us to put it in a legislative format, to put it in the bill will, I think, assure people that there is some sincerity in what the stated purposes are. To not have it in the legislation is a concern, and to have the minister's role there defined I think simply makes sense. Again, that section does not ask for money; it asks for a process, and one that basically makes a great deal of sense and will clearly be needed by the library system as the year unfolds.
Mr Silipo: Just briefly speaking in support of this, I have the funny feeling that we're beginning to see a pattern develop here as we go through clause-by-clause, which is that the government will find no amendments suggested by the Liberal or NDP caucus acceptable, which I think is indicative of how this government has been working on a number of fronts.
But to come back to this, this particular amendment is again setting out some responsibilities that the minister should have, responsibilities that, as Mr Gravelle has said, the minister has on more than one occasion indicated she will ensure in fact will happen. What we're saying is, look, you're making these changes; we don't agree with the changes you're making, but at the very least put into the legislation the fact that the minister will continue to ensure that there is a viable system across the province. I don't know why that particular suggestion gives the government members such difficulty.
1120
Mr Shea: Just a very brief response. In terms of the amendments, clearly the government has listened to the deputations as the committee has travelled across the province and is indeed looking at a number of amendments that are before us today and giving consideration to them in the clause-by-clause. To ascribe to that any motive other than trying to ensure that there's a very good bill on behalf of Ontarians I think would be untoward.
The second part, if I can just respond to Mr Gravelle's intervention, is just to very briefly once again remind us all of the importance of the transition fund. That is indeed why it's there: to respond to that part that Mr Gravelle would be concerned about in clause (c). I think in fact everything is currently in place and it seems as though this amendment simply is superfluous.
Mr Gravelle: I just think this amendment would in a very minimal sense be reassuring to the library community, to a number of people who care about libraries. I don't think it should be viewed as a problem, and you haven't even stated it as being such. It's a question of putting into legislation something that states very clearly the minister's accountability and responsibility. I have some concerns that as the day goes on, there will be no acceptance.
May I say in the previous amendment as well -- though I can't speak to it because it's gone. This is not a controversial one. It's basically one to legislatively give some assurance that the minister's publicly stated objectives are simply in the bill itself. When they're not in the bill, I think people, for pretty good reasons, begin to sometimes say, "What is this bill really all about?" It's about something else unless you accept some of the amendments, and this is one that quite frankly would be a responsible one and one that the minister I'm sure undoubtedly would speak publicly or in the House and say these things. These are the aspects that she would want to support, and I would presume and hope she would do that. That being the case, it seems odd that you would not accept putting this in the legislation itself.
Mr Shea: Just a final point. My colleague will acknowledge the fact that many of the responsibilities contained in his motion indeed the minister does not at this time require legislative authority for and can operate and does operate in that capacity. For that reason, it seems inappropriate to place this in the act.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 7, a New Democratic proposed amendment.
Mr Silipo: I move that section 2 of the bill be amended by adding the following as sections 2.1 and 2.2 of the Public Libraries Act:
"Entitlement to public library services
"2.1 Every resident of Ontario is entitled to have access to public library services in his or her own municipality or in an adjacent municipality.
"Library funding
"2.2 Every municipality shall, annually, devote to operating costs for library services an amount that meets the following conditions:
"1. It is equal to or greater than the dollar amount the municipality or its predecessors devoted to operating costs for library services in 1996.
"2. It represents a proportion of the municipality's overall operating expenditures that is equal to or greater than the proportion of those expenditures that the municipality or its predecessors devoted to operating costs for library services in 1996."
To speak to this motion, there are two important things that this amendment proposes to do. One is to ensure that we have very early in the bill a basic entitlement to public library services so that every resident of Ontario is entitled to have access to public library services either in their own municipality or, where that isn't feasible, in at least the adjacent municipality. The second issue that this amendment tries to deal with is the question of funding, which as you know has been a major concern as well.
What we're doing quite frankly with this amendment is calling the government on its proposal and on its suggestion that there will be no cuts to the funding for libraries by virtue of the changes it is making. We're saying let's enshrine in legislation that you believe by shifting the costs on to municipalities for the complete funding of libraries they will not have to reduce funding, as you argue, because it's going to be an even trade. There should be certainly no problem with suggesting that the legislation should protect the current level of funding at least either in the dollar amounts or as a proportion of what the municipalities are now spending. It provides both of those as vehicles through which that test could be applied.
I realize this is perhaps a bit of an unusual way of suggesting that funding be maintained, but quite frankly, against what the government is doing and in light of our view that what's going to happen across the province if something like isn't put into the bill is that there will be cuts to the library system because municipalities will do that either by choice or, more likely, will do it because, as they size up the different competing interests, they will feel they have no room but to make the cuts.
What we're saying to the government is, if you believe that the current shift of funding that you're making should cause municipalities no problem, then there should be no problem in terms of ensuring that they be required to provide that current level of funding.
Mr Gilchrist: I think this is perhaps one of the more remarkable occurrences that we will witness this session. After literally days and days of debate, thousands of words spoken in the House about how odious Bill 103 was because it dared to intrude in the affairs of a municipality, we now have the third party suggesting, contrary to both the spirit and I believe the law, that the province direct to municipalities how they spend their money.
This is utterly incredible. To suggest that the municipalities should not have the right to make their decisions as they affect libraries is absolutely contrary to everything you said during Bill 103. More to the point, it is absolutely contrary to everything under Who Does What. The very spirit of the various acts under Who Does What is to ensure that those municipalities which are funding a particular service have the total control over it, and total control includes how much they spend.
This is utterly incredible that you, of all people, would be putting this forward and is, quite frankly, a slap in the face of all the municipalities, which I believe know how to manage their affairs quite nicely and will make the appropriate decisions when it comes to funding for the necessary services, such as libraries.
The Chair: Further debate? I just thought you might want to say a few words.
Mr Silipo: You see, Chair, I find that line of reasoning equally interesting, not to use other words to describe it. The government is, every day, telling municipalities what they can or can't do.
The other way that I could take Mr Gilchrist's comments is as confirmation that what they intend to do through this is not an even trade, because if it was an even trade then they would have no problem. If this isn't the way you want to do it, then there are other ways to ensure the current level of funding is provided. You're not prepared to do that either, so the bottom line is that you expect and are prepared to live with municipalities, once this bill is passed, cutting the funding to libraries.
We don't think that should happen, particularly for the reasons you are doing it, which is to sort of download on to the property tax base a variety of costs so that you can fund the provincial income tax cut. We think that therefore it warrants this kind of amendment because it's the only way left to protect, in light of the actions you're taking, the current level of funding in the library system.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 8, which is a government motion. Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: I move that section 3 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Libraries continued
"3(1) Every public library, union public library and county library that is governed by this part and is in operation immediately before the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, comes into force is continued as a public library subject to this part.
"Same
"(2) Every public library board, union public library board and county library board that is governed by this part and is in operation immediately before the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, comes into force is continued subject to this part.
"Same
"(3) The county library co-operative board established under this part that is in operation immediately before the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, comes into force is continued subject to this part."
In many ways, we will remember that this has some technical aspects to it as well. If nothing else, we will recall the submissions made to us by the deputation from Huntsville. I think my colleague from Port Arthur remembers that only too well. This is an attempt to ensure that that instance and others that may be similar to it are adequately addressed and that we lay to rest any concerns they may have about their continuance.
1130
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Carried.
Page 9, which is a Liberal motion. Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 3 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Metropolitan Toronto Library Board
"(4) Despite the City of Toronto Act, 1997, the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board, or its successor board, is continued as a special library service board to which section 40 applies."
I think everybody in the committee recognizes that the Metro reference library existed, in essence, as a result of the Metropolitan Toronto act, which of course was repealed because of Bill 103. This clause would ensure its continued role as a special service board despite Bill 103. I would anticipate that this would receive full support from the committee because certainly we all realize the extraordinarily important role of the Metro Toronto reference library in terms of its services across the province. In essence, it's an Ontario-wide reference library which serves hundreds of thousands of people. Its role is crucial, it's unquestioned.
We could get into the horrors of Bill 103, but perhaps this is not the place for that. However, one of the aspects of Bill 103 was that this particular legislation basically took away the right of the Metro library to special service status. This amendment would deal with that, and I would hope that it would be supported because of the extraordinary, important role of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library.
The Chair: Debate?
Mr Silipo: I certainly would support this amendment. The next one that follows is one that we have which is similar, although I think ours goes one step beyond in also designating that the Toronto reference library would operate an in-depth, second-tier reference service for the whole province, because that's something that has also been addressed through the hearings.
We certainly would want to see the distinct nature of the Metropolitan Toronto library and the library board maintained, because I think, as everyone recognizes, it does fulfil a function that is different from the rest of the library system.
Mr Gravelle and I were at a meeting just the other night where, among other things, we talked about that with people from a variety of libraries across Metropolitan Toronto. I think there is certainly clear understanding and recognition that the reference library in Metropolitan Toronto serves, as I said, a different function and one that would be difficult to try to encompass under the overall library board, even if this bill were to be implemented here in Metropolitan Toronto.
It's one place where certainly I believe the government can show some flexibility in terms of addressing what throughout the library community is clearly understood as a service that is different from the rest of the library system and is best run, therefore, as a separate and distinct entity with a separate governance structure.
I just hope the government can find its way to support either this amendment or the one that we have following as a way to show that. I really would like to hear, if they can't, why they have such difficulty in doing that.
Mr Shea: Let me respond to the last sentence of my colleague's intervention, because he and my colleague from Port Arthur raise an issue that is obviously of more than passing interest to the minister. Let me reassure them, first of all, that all boards continue to exist, including the Metro reference library board, until January 1, 1998. So we understand there's still a time frame there.
In terms of this particular facility, which I think we all acknowledge is exemplary in its field, it is obviously a facility that requires careful consideration by the transition team. Some significant discussion and consideration is due and is expected by the government. I must also raise the concern that there is the question of the six existing library boards and their relationships and so forth. All of that is yet to be addressed by the transition team.
This amendment has beneath it an approach that I recognize and certainly understand, but I think I have to suggest, on behalf of the government, that we need to give the transition team the time required to make the appropriate considerations. It's not appropriate to suggest we can indeed deal with that in terms of a legislative amendment in the space of a 20-minute clause-by-clause. It is far more significant than that.
That the government is committed to that facility I think is shown in the first instance by the continuation of its funds for this year to the tune of something in the order -- correct me if it's wrong -- of $1.5 million, at least at this juncture. I can give you an undertaking that indeed there is some considerable interest on the part of the minister in the future of this facility and the relationship it plays either to the local structure or the relationship it may play within the provincial system. That's something the transition team may want to address, and the minister may want to also give some consideration to it. At this point, the amendment is at least precipitous.
Mr Silipo: Let me see if I can pursue that a little bit more, then. I don't know Mr Gravelle's views on this, but I hear what Mr Shea is saying. If I can take his comments at their most generous, I think he's saying that maybe we haven't heard the last of this one and we might see some changes come through the transition team work.
I wonder whether there would be agreement by members of the committee, then, if we were to deal with this. If the government is not prepared to support either this amendment or the one that would follow, that we have put from the NDP caucus, then would the government be prepared to have a referral directly through this committee? I'm assuming that's possible, Chair, either through the minister or directly to the transition team; in other words, some way of indicating we understand that this issue is to be addressed by the transition team. We would be sending both motions to the transition team to look at, and that could come back, because obviously, as we understand, some further legislation will be required to implement Bill 103 here in Metropolitan Toronto. I presume that if an amendment like this or changes like this were to be acceptable, they would be in that legislation. I'm suggesting a way that could be dealt with so that we don't have to deal with this.
I would just go one step further in that and say that if Mr Shea feels that having some time between now and when we reconvene this afternoon to consider that suggestion might be useful, then perhaps we could stand down this amendment and the next one and come back to them in the afternoon sitting.
Mr Shea: The difficulty I have with that is that, from my own political background, I'd prefer to give you an answer right now. Prudence of the last several years is now teaching me there may be some merit in simply deferring the two of them for an hour or so, so I have a chance to speak with legal and so forth, and then letting me respond to them. This is an extremely important issue for us all, and we're not being partisan in that regard. I think all around this table really want to ensure the very best is done with this bill particularly.
You may be suggesting an approach, Mr Silipo, that we may be able to use for some other amendments as well, and let me just give some consideration to that. If that responds to your question and if the Chair would undertake to simply let us defer these two until we come back afterwards, I'm happy to defer that, if that's agreeable, until I have a chance to reflect upon it and its implications.
1140
The Chair: The committee is agreed? Mr Gravelle?
Mr Gravelle: Absolutely.
The Chair: The committee is agreed that pages 9 and 10 be deferred perhaps until this afternoon or a later date. I need unanimous consent. Is it agreed? Agreed. The proposed motions are 9 and 10. Pages 9 and 10 are deferred, Mr Shea, until this afternoon some time?
Mr Shea: For pages 9 and 10?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr Shea: If not sooner, I hope.
The Chair: Okay, we'll defer those.
Mr Shea: Which clock are we using, Chairman, mine or that one?
The Chair: I'm about 10 minutes ahead of that clock.
Mr Shea: You usually are, Chairman.
The Chair: Indeed. Mr Shea, the next proposed amendment is yours, on page 11.
Mr Shea: I move that subsections 4(3) and (4) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same: by county or regional municipality
"(3) If resolutions of the councils of at least two thirds of the municipalities forming part of a county or regional municipality ask that the county or regional municipality establish a public library, the council of the county or regional municipality may by bylaw establish a public library for those municipalities.
"Additional members
"(4) At any time after a public library under subsection (3) is established, the council of a non-participating or separated municipality and the council of a county or regional municipality may make an agreement bringing the non-participating or separated municipality into the public library, and the council shall amend the establishing bylaw accordingly."
It's pretty self-explanatory. We went through that in several cases.
Mr Silipo: I just have a question. At first glance it seems that this doesn't change substantially what's in the bill. Is that correct? I don't understand the change this amendment is making. Does it just take out the reference to the county of Oxford?
Mr Shea: Yes.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? The motion is carried.
Page 12 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 4 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Public consultation
"(5) Before entering an agreement under subsection (2) or (4), the council of a municipality shall,
"(a) establish a public consultation process to ensure that the views of the public and all stakeholders on a proposed agreement are fully considered;
"(b) publish a notice to the public in the municipality advising of its intention to enter an agreement and setting out the public consultation process; and
"(c) consider the views of the public and all stakeholders on the proposed agreement in accordance with its established process."
In essence, this simply adds to the section. It more or less guarantees the general public will be consulted prior to any agreement for a change in the library system, to merge or to disband. The public needs to know, I believe, and this simply puts in legislative form the fact that people will not be surprised by decisions that either have to be made or are just simply made. The public should be involved in this process.
I guess this has some relevance with the passage of Bill 103. There are obviously a number of existing libraries in Toronto, East York, York, North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough, let alone the Metro reference library, which we are deferring, which may have some very dramatic changes. This is just to give some assurance that there will be a public consultation process. Again, I can't imagine there would be any reason why the government would not support a public consultation process.
Mr Shea: In response, the government has no difficulty with public consultation. The difficulty it has with this amendment is that it is calling upon the government to lay upon the municipalities a process which the municipalities themselves may wish to follow in a different mechanism or indeed may be accountable for in the Municipal Act and so forth. There are some other areas where accountabilities are lodged, as my colleague knows. For that reason, I have some difficulty with it.
More than that -- not more than that but equal to that, it's passing strange that my notes don't indicate this being raised by any deputant during our hearings. I found that one a curious response. No one seemed to think that indeed councils would go strange and do anything other than what the Municipal Act required of them. In that sense, I won't support that amendment.
Mr Gravelle: It feeds into the fact that I think a lot of what is happening at the provincial level is happening quickly and speedily and there's a need to basically put in some guarantees. I appreciate that putting this in the bill is asking municipalities to do things. It's not unusual for the provincial government to do that. Your response feeds even more into the fact that you just don't want to have anything to do with it, you don't want to maintain any responsibility for the process at all. That's one of the things that concerns us with this bill. Asking for a public consultation process is not offensive and would not be treated as offensive. It just simply guarantees public access to the process. You're quite right: In most cases, that's exactly how it would be handled regardless.
You'll notice that many of the amendments basically speak to the fact that words spoken by the minister or the government state this. There's no sense that this needs to be put into the actual legislation, whereas we feel it would be useful to have it put in the legislation.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
We are continuing with page 13, which is a government motion.
Mr Shea: I move that section 5 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Same
"(1.1) If a board that is in existence immediately before the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997 comes into force is a corporation known in English as The (name of county) County Library Board and in French as Conseil de la bibliothèque du comté de (name of county), the board may continue to be known by those names instead of those set out in subsection (1)."
My apologies for the way the French may have been translated through the microphone.
The Chair: You did a fine job, Mr Shea; if you could provide your rationale.
Mr Shea: It's got that Irish twang to it, I know.
Mr Silipo: It's the technology.
Mr Shea: It's the technology that does it, Tony, that's right.
Mr Sergio: You should practise more often.
Mr Shea: I might.
Mr Silipo: They probably have some good audio stuff in the library.
Mr Shea: That's a good response. We don't charge for it either.
Mr Silipo: Not until you pass this bill. You can get it for free until you pass this bill.
The Chair: Debate? Did you have some comments, Mr Shea? I'm almost afraid to ask that.
Mr Shea: No. I don't think I'll make my comments in French at this point.
The Chair: Indeed. Any further debate? All those in favour? It is carried.
Page 14, a government motion. Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: I move that subsection 5 (2) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Appointment
"(2) The council or councils, as the case may be, shall appoint the members of the board for the public library or county library cooperative established by them or their predecessors."
In the proposed subsection 5(2) and section 6 of the act, the words "council or councils that establish" do not make it clear which council has the power given by the provision. Therefore the wording has been changed to make it clear that council has the power whether it established the library or a predecessor council did.
1150
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? It is carried.
Page 15, the clerk has just pointed out to me, as I understand, would amend the motion as just amended by Mr Shea, just so we're all clear about that. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Mr Shea: No.
The Chair: As I understand it, the New Democratic motion on page 15 amends the motion we just voted on. All right? Everybody okay?
Mr Silipo: It amends it in a couple of significant ways. Let me just read it.
I move that subsection 5(2) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Number of members, appointment
"(2) The council or councils that established the public library or county library cooperative" -- and I guess that would change now to read as per the last one, right?
The Chair: That's right.
Mr Silipo: But the key words would be that this "shall fix the board's number of members, which shall not be less than three, and shall appoint the members in accordance with subsection (2.1).
"Qualifications of members
"(2.1) The board shall be composed of,
"(a) a majority of members each of whom,
"(i) is at least 18 years old,
"(ii) is a Canadian citizen,
"(iii) is a resident of a municipality whose council appoints the members of the board, or a resident of a municipality or local service board area or a member of a band, as the case may be, that has a contract with the board under section 29, and
"(iv) is not employed by the board or by the municipality or county, as the case may be;
"(b) at least one member who is employed by the board and works in a library; and
"(c) if the council or councils wish, one or more of their own members."
This proposal of ours does a couple of important things. One is to establish a minimum number of people to be on the library boards, which we've suggested as being three. I note that my Liberal colleagues have one in which I think they suggested it be five. I personally could quite frankly live with either one, but we've suggested three. I think that was our sense of many of the suggestions made through the hearings. But I think the essential point is that there be a minimum number which is greater than one, and greater than two, I would argue, because it's important that we be clear that even under this new act there would need to continue to be a board that would actually have some people on it, as opposed to the duties being assigned by council to a bureaucrat or someone else, and so the three.
Then we set out the qualifications in terms of things that I think are generally acceptable: people who would be over 18 years of age, a Canadian citizen, a resident, or under the other pieces of the bill, as through the various possibilities that one can be defined as a resident under this bill. Then we think under (b) there is an important element that could be added to the library board, which is to have at least one of the members be somebody who works for the board and can bring that perspective. Obviously there would be issues of potential conflict in some instances, but I think those can be dealt with under all of the other overarching legislation and regulations that exist. But we think that the addition of somebody who works in the library system would be an important part to add to the composition of the board. Then (c) just sets out obviously that among the choices that council would have, it could have members of council as well.
It sets out very clearly the fact that there would be a minimum number and that the majority would be people who would be residents, as opposed to politicians. Certainly for me that is one of the key issues that has been raised through this whole debate from the time the government decided to open this piece of legislation, which is that they are changing a history that goes back over 100 years by leaving simply in the discretion of the municipality whether there will be a majority of citizen members or not.
We believe it's essential that this continue to be the case. While we see it makes sense for local councillors to be involved on the board, the board should continue to be set up in a way that maintains majority involvement by citizens, because that has worked well. We don't see any reason to change that. While there may be some municipalities that would prefer to do away with that, we think this is one where, in the Ontario-wide public interest, it should remain that we have citizen-dominated boards, and that's what this amendment suggests we do.
Mr Shea: There are a couple of points with this. I preface my comments by reminding us that probably there are three essential issues that flow from this bill on which we will engage in at least a partisan way.
One is the issue of the technicalities, and in that sense I think we're all able to deal with that regardless of how we may view it in any other way. So we can all agree on that.
Then we come down to the two core issues: funding and governance. My colleague addresses the issue of governance head-on, and I applaud that. The concern I have with it obviously is that in entering into the partnership with our municipalities, the government has made it very clear that, as in marriages, trust is an important part, as well as responsibility and accountability.
Municipalities are charged with the responsibility of their libraries and so should not be encumbered with determining how they will select the membership of their board. We went through this debate a number of times as we were on the road, I know, because library boards perceive their function in a way that is significantly different from the way many councils may view it. There is, if not a level of education, certainly an area for tremendous public discourse still before us in this regard. I must confess I was a little distressed to see the dichotomy that seemed to exist between some boards -- not all, and not the majority -- and the councils.
I remind us, for example, that the part of the motion that is on the floor right now that deals with the issue of age and Canadian citizenship is consistent with the requirements in section 10(1) of the current act. So there's no need to go through this one again.
Mr Silipo: Are you going to take it out or have you taken it out?
Mr Shea: It was consistent with that in the act. The fact is we have said we assume now that the municipalities are responsible for ensuring that they will select the membership of their boards consistent with the best practices for the municipalities.
The issue of the appointment of a library employee is one that is of real concern to the government in as much as it can place someone in a potential conflict-of-interest position. That's of real concern. Again, the council might do that, but really ought to be at least forewarned that there could be a difficulty in that situation.
I am pleased to see that both the Liberal and the NDP amendments reflect the amendment of the government that a minimum number ought to be identified on a board. That was something that was not there when this bill went out for public hearings, as we may recall. It was mute on that. The government was of the opinion at that time that municipalities may wish to set their own levels.
Then there was some concern raised by library boards that some boards may simply appoint the chief administrative officer as the library board and circumvent the intent of the act. The government has responded to that by saying that, certainly in keeping with the Corporations Act, the minimum should be three. I suspect in most cases, certainly in the larger municipalities, the number would be larger than that, but that is something left to the municipality to determine. But certainly the minimum will be three.
Beyond that, on the composition of the board, the bill is mute because we are of the opinion that the council ought to be directly accountable to the electors of that municipality and that the council should be free to reflect the wishes of the municipality, and the composition of the board would from time to time reflect the changing values and objectives of the municipality in that way.
1200
For that reason, I think the essential part that is of concern to both my Liberal and NDP colleagues, that there be a minimum number to ensure that the one that might have been there before is no longer there, has been addressed by the government amendment that calls for three. Beyond that, we continue to represent the responsibilities and accountabilities of the local councils.
Mr Gravelle: This is obviously a central issue and one of the most important issues we will be discussing and fighting for today. The whole concept of a citizen majority and having the board set up in that manner is something that came up continually, and how it worked was expressed in very clear terms by all sides.
To me, this slides very much into the whole point of, why do we have Bill 109? The Public Libraries Act works and works well. We had many examples of how the system can work, and some of them that very much favoured the government's perspective on things. It worked under the Public Libraries Act. There is no need to change this.
Mr Shea just talked about not wanting to encumber the municipal councils. The fact is I think one could make a very, very good argument -- and it was made during the public hearings as well -- that indeed a citizen majority actually suits the municipalities just fine and that in many cases they will maintain that because this suits the municipal councillors as well.
The fact is, it works. The fact is, it's important. The fact is, this slides into the issue of intellectual freedom and having to make some very difficult decisions, and that a library board made up of a citizen majority can do this in a manner that's less difficult than it is for elected officials and perhaps in a more proper fashion.
As we know, there are three or four very clear, important elements to this legislation that we're all concerned about. This is certainly one of the key ones. The other one perhaps is the whole question of core services and user fees and the whole aspect of provincial funding, which we addressed earlier in terms of my motion. But this is one where the message was loud and clear and this is also the one where one would hope public hearings have an impact. Even those who said, "You don't have to have them" -- and I will acknowledge there were certain presentations that did so -- said they worked, they can make them work. There were examples of how the present system works. Ultimately the only real reason this bill is here is because of the downloading process. The only reason it's in place is because of the downloading process. The fact is that this aspect of the bill very much worked.
As Mr Silipo pointed out, we have an amendment that follows that talks about a minimum of five members, but I think the core issue is citizen majority. Certainly I want to support that aspect of it. Actually, I just want to clarify with Mr Silipo, and I apologize if I'm being stupid, but in clause (c), "if the council or councils wish, one or more of their own members," which implies there could be more than one council member on it. But that would be if the other requirements are met, therefore the majority would still be in place.
Mr Silipo: Yes. As you know, these things are drafted by legislative counsel, so it's set up in a way that leaves open the possibility -- in the "one or more," the "more" would be used, would click in, as I understand it, in the event that there would be more than three. In that case you could have more than one councillor but still retain a majority of citizens.
Mr Gravelle: That's what I read too, but you're right, I'm not a lawyer either. I didn't want to be incorrect there.
This is an extremely important issue. This is one that means a great deal. This is one we heard no matter what part of the province we came into. This is what we hear when I've got 300 individual petitions signed by people. I wish there were a way for me to read their names into the record. These are people who were concerned about this particular aspect, as well as others, and were told there was no point in sending them to the minister because it wouldn't make a difference, which is a pretty awful thing to be told. So we said, "Send them to us and we'll find some way to get them into the record," and I will do so at some point. If I could read them now, I would. These are people who care a great deal and this is a message they sent across. It's a message that's being sent across in an extraordinary fashion in terms of letters and in terms of presentations made at the public hearings, and people calling. So this is one that's important.
Mr Shea, I'm sure, won't argue with me on this, that indeed there is a large outcry to maintain the process of citizen majority on the boards. It's one we think will work. We don't think it encumbers the municipalities. We saw the examples of how it can work and they can work, and we've seen under the Public Libraries Act how the system has worked. Even with some people not liking the system, they made it work. The fact is that generally speaking across the province this process is one that makes sense, one that people feel very strongly about and one that we believe will be ultimately better for municipalities.
I hope that the sense of this amendment, let alone the next one, because if we get this one through and it's acceptable -- certainly the bottom line here is citizen majority, whether it's three or five. We felt it should be five, but if indeed the amendment is supported, I would be pleased to support this one.
The Chair: Further debate? If there is no further debate, we will vote on the motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
It's after 12 o'clock. I might say that the Chair's clock and the committee room's clock are about five minutes apart and we will try to rectify that.
We will continue this afternoon and we will call a recess until 3:30 this afternoon.
The committee recessed from 1208 to 1532.
The Chair: This morning, you may recall, we deferred two motions, a Liberal and an NDP motion, pages 9 and 10. Mr Shea, are you prepared to proceed with those?
Mr Shea: I am, Chairman.
The Chair: Mr Gravelle, we're back on page 9, your motion which has been read. We're ready to proceed with debate on page 9, if you wish. I don't know whether it's Mr Shea's call to tell us what he has to say.
Mr Gravelle: That might be useful, Chair, because we talked about deferring 9 and 10 until Mr Shea got back to us.
Mr Shea: Mr Chair, always in the spirit of cooperation and assistance, and in this instance I particularly concur -- I refer to what we will refer to here as pages 9 and 10, I suppose, without reading them out precisely unless it is appropriate to do so. I'd seek guidance on that from counsel, just so we don't stumble into the wrong areas.
The Chair: Mr Shea, just so I know what's going on here, there's a motion on the floor moved by Mr Gravelle, which is the motion on page 9. I believe that's the motion we're dealing with. That has already been read into the record, unless we're going to do something else with that motion.
Mr Shea: I was actually about to do that. I was about to move a motion of deferral and a referral, as we discussed this morning, but I need your guidance. Do you want me to read both of them that we're involved with today?
The Chair: I don't know what you're going to say, so you'll have to tell me what you're going to do.
Mr Shea: Then I will tell you precisely what I'm going to do and everybody else can go to sleep for a moment while I carry on.
Mr Silipo: We need to know what you're going to do as well.
Mr Shea: The Liberal motion, which is identified as page 9 of the documents before us, is on section 2 of the bill, subsection 3(4) of the Public Libraries Act. It reads as follows:
"I move that section 3 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"`Metropolitan Toronto Library Board
"`(4) Despite the City of Toronto Act, 1997, the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board, or its successor board, is continued as a special library service board to which section 40 applies.'"
The way you've been ruling, Chair, I presume I'd probably better deal with each of them one by one. Referring only to the item that we refer to as page 9, which I have just read, I will move that this matter -- actually, I'm prepared to vote it down, but also to refer it. I don't want to be discourteous to my --
Mr Sergio: Are you calling for a vote?
Mr Shea: Not yet. I'm just trying to sort out the way we should handle this appropriately. But thank you for your alert, Mr Sergio.
What I want to do is put on the table, Chairman, my recommendation that the standing committee on general government recognizes the important role the MTRL has played within the local and provincial systems and refers the attached motions to the transition team as examples of an issue they may wish to consider. When I say I'm referring that, I'm referring to what we have identified before us in documents as pages 9 and 10, one being the Liberal motion of Mr Gravelle and one being the NDP motion by Mr Silipo.
Chair, I need your guidance on whether we are prepared to vote the motion down -- and there may be a procedural matter here of voting both of them down to at least make sure there's no misunderstanding of what we're doing -- but I don't want them to disappear from our view. I would like them to be captured and referred on, in the spirit of our conversations, because we would like to have engaged in the conversation. It's procedural advice I'm seeking from the Chair. I mean that with the best spirit of cooperation.
The Chair: I guess the problem is that we have Mr Gravelle's motion on the floor.
Mr Shea: Yes, you do. He could withdraw it.
The Chair: We'll either have the vote on that or he'll have to consent to doing something with it, withdraw it or whatever. Are you suggesting that I as the Chair write the transition team or committee asking them to consider these proposed amendments?
Mr Shea: What I am suggesting is that the standing committee recognizes the importance of these documents and in fact it refers these two motions, not passed, to the transition team as an example of an issue they may wish to consider.
The Chair: Well, I have some speakers on the list; we'll hear what they have to say. Mr Silipo.
Mr Silipo: I sense that we have agreement if we can just sort out the procedural way to do it. What I hear Mr Shea saying is that he's agreeable to having these motions, rather than voted on -- although I think he did say "voted down," but from our perspective, I would not want to see the motions voted down. What I would like to see is what Mr Shea has suggested, which is that we refer these to the transition team with a request that they consider them. I would be even more comfortable if there was agreement that we ask the transition team to consider these, understanding that there will be additional legislation coming forward as it relates to Metropolitan Toronto and they may or may not then form part of that legislative package.
I think I understand the position Mr Shea is in. He's not able to tell us at this point whether the government will agree to do that second part. While I may disagree with the position on that, I understand the position he's in. If there is a way in which this issue can be left open at this point, I think it behooves all of us to take that road as opposed to voting this down or voting it up.
Procedurally, Chair, given that the motion from Mr Gravelle dealing with the first amendment is on the floor, is it out of order to have an amendment deferred once it's been put? If not, Mr Shea's motion to defer it would be quite in order.
1540
Mr Shea: It wasn't meant quite that way. I was seeking the advice of the Chair. Chairman, just to be of assistance here, there are a couple of ways to proceed. First, we can certainly vote on the motions, and they may be passed or they may be defeated. If they were defeated, I would still want to put forward my motion, out of our discussions, to ensure that it is not lost from sight. That is an undertaking I have no difficulty with at all. That would be the clearest and cleanest way for us to proceed.
There is a second way to proceed, I would think -- and the Chairman may wish to give some advice -- and that is for both the Liberal and the NDP caucus to withdraw their motions and for the motions to be collected up and forwarded on to the transition team for consideration. But I don't know how to do that, because it will not then have been before us.
Mr Silipo: That's my point, Chair: Is it out of order to have a motion to refer once you've got a motion like Mr Gravelle's on the floor?
Mr Shea: Let's just do a vote and then I'll do the motion after.
The Chair: Can I ask the committee members a question? Assuming we ultimately finish the clause-by-clause debate, what happens to these two sections? Assuming that we agree these sections would be referred to the transition team, what happens to the report?
Mr Shea: If we went to a vote now on these two, if the votes were -- let me take the most negative side: Suppose they were both to lose. I would still take it upon us to ask the committee to give consideration to referring these motions to the transition team as an example of a concern. I think that still gives effect to the issues raised by both parties.
The Chair: Would this committee be in a position then to report to the House?
Mr Shea: All the committee would report to the House is that 9 and 10 were not carried.
The Chair: I had some other speakers. Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: It's somewhat encouraging to hear what Mr Shea is trying to do here, but we want to make sure that actually has some real value to it. I would prefer not to have the amendments voted down. The issue itself truly stays alive if we are in a position where what you're doing has some real value to it. I think what you're trying to do is to make sure it has some impact. If we can find the correct wording in terms of how this is passed on for consideration, and if Mr Silipo agrees, I would rather withdraw the amendment on the basis that there is a further process going on so that this issue is still being dealt with -- if that is the best way to deal with it, rather than have them voted down. I perhaps need some guidance as well.
The Chair: Mr Gravelle, I'm just asking the Clerk. I'm not sure, unless you feel strongly about it -- if you withdraw, can you bring it back again? I don't think you can.
Mr Gravelle: I don't think I can either, but what we're trying to do is to find some solution here that the amendment ultimately has some value. If it's withdrawn and it is referred and carried on to the transition team with the appropriate wording, that may have more value. But I don't want to withdraw it if that's not going to be effective. I want to be as clear as possible. But if indeed it is being officially referred by the standing committee to the transition team, that has some value. That means the issue is no longer --
The Chair: My belief is that whether it's withdrawn or whether it's defeated, Mr Shea has indicated that he is prepared to recommend that this be sent to the transition team, which I gather is your intent and Mr Silipo's. If it goes there, it doesn't really matter whether it's defeated or deferred or withdrawn; that's your aim, to get it there and get them dealing with it.
Mr Sergio: If it's defeated, there is no motion, with respect, Mr Chair.
The Chair: You're right. It's gone, as far as the bill is concerned. But in terms of its going to the transition team, they would be dealing with it.
Mr Sergio: I have a problem with that. I think staff can help us with this without wasting too much time. If the motion on the floor now is put to a vote and defeated, that's the end of it; it doesn't go anywhere, the way I see it.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr Sergio: I would rather suggest to my colleague that the motion be dealt with and the request be that it be referred to the transition team, period; that we don't debate it and that the only vote we take is on the referral to the transition team. Once we vote on it and the motion is gone, it's gone; there's nothing else to debate.
Mr Silipo: Chair, I think we're getting ourselves into a procedural wrangle that we don't need to. You have a motion on the floor from Mr Gravelle. If it's in order for a referral motion to refer that amendment, all we need to do is to deal with the referral motion, if Mr Shea is prepared to put that. That means that as far as the amendments are concerned with regard to this bill, we won't have dealt with them but will have referred them somewhere else. I think we all understand that in doing that, the section in the bill would go forward without the amendments. The bill would not be held up. If anything comes back from the transition team involving what we are seeking, the continuation of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library board, the place to put that in legislation would be in the bill that is yet to come, which is the accompanying bill to Bill 103, and then we'll deal with that issue at that time.
Procedurally, I think we're making more of it than we need to. If there is a problem with referring a motion because it's already been put, I think Mr Gravelle has also suggested that he's prepared to withdraw his motion. Then we could deal with these two amendments, either now or later on, by way of referring them to the transition team.
The Chair: Subject to what members have to say, it seems to me that this motion either has to pass, it has to be defeated, or it has to be withdrawn; otherwise, this bill will stay in limbo forever. In other words, the motion has to be dealt with. What Mr Gravelle does with his motion is his business. But after this motion has been disposed of -- withdrawn, defeated, passed -- Mr Shea is undertaking to introduce a motion that this whole topic on pages 9 and 10 be referred to the transition team. That would enable this committee to report to the House and the transition team would continue to work on this topic.
Are we in agreement?
Mr Gravelle: So it cannot be referred in its present state.
The Chair: The motion has to be dealt with by this committee. You have to either withdraw it or allow it to be voted on.
Mr Gravelle: I'm not so sure. I'm pleased that Mr Shea is committed to doing this. What I'm mulling over right now is whether it is better to withdraw or simply to have the vote taken. Mr Shea, in either case, has agreed to carry it on in this referral sense, and I take it he will not take umbrage at either process we use.
Mr Shea: Chairman, I spent virtually an entire week with the distinguished member for Port Arthur and took no umbrage at any time. I see no reason to change my position now.
The Chair: I think that's wonderful, but I'd like to get on with this somehow.
Mr Shea: That's why you're getting the big bucks as Chairman.
My advice would be to pick up on what Mr Silipo has said. It would seem to be a little easier, a little cleaner, simply to withdraw the two amendments.
1550
Mr Gravelle: I withdraw my amendment.
Interjection.
The Chair: Mr Shea, we do not have a motion on the floor.
Mr Shea: Right. That motion has been withdrawn. I have nothing on the floor either.
Mr Silipo: Mr Chair, I think what I'm hearing from Mr Shea is that he's prepared to move the referral motion after we finish with all the other amendments.
Mr Shea: Then, when we've completed everything, we'll deal with this. We'll pull this together --
Mr Silipo: That's fine. All I would seek to do at this point is to read into the record the amendment that we had put, which I understand Mr Shea will then incorporate into the referral motion.
Mr Shea: Understanding you will then withdraw it.
Mr Silipo: Yes. I'm not moving it, I'm just reading it into the record, and that is that section 3 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the Bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Metropolitan Toronto Library Board
"(4) Despite the City of Toronto Act, 1997, the corporation known as the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board is continued under the name "Toronto Reference Library Board" in English and "Conseil de la bibliothéque de référence de Toronto" in French.
"Same
"(5) The Toronto Reference Library Board shall, in addition to its powers under subsection 40(3), operate an in-depth second-tier reference service for the whole province."
My understanding is Mr Shea will then move a motion to have this and the Liberal amendment that we've just had withdrawn by Mr Gravelle referred to the transition team.
Mr Shea: So we're clear, Chairman, that what we know as pages 9 and 10 of the documents the amendments, the Liberal and the NDP motions, have now been withdrawn.
The Chair: That's our understanding, yes.
Mr Shea: In the meantime, as we get towards the end we're asking staff to sort of redo a motion now that maybe --
The Chair: Do you want to go on with other things?
Mr Shea: Oh, yes, let's carry on. I'll deal with that at the end.
The Chair: All right. Are we happy to set this matter down again? Okay? Then we'll move on to page 16, which is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 5 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Size and composition
"(2.1) The board shall be composed of at least five members, a majority of whom must be persons who are not members of an appointing council.
"Qualifications for membership on board
"(2.2) A person is qualified to be a member of a board if he or she is a member of the appointing council or is a resident of the municipality or county for which the library has been established and if he or she is not employed by the board or the municipality or county."
I want to use this opportunity to make one last plea to the government to listen to what we heard in the public hearings, what we're hearing from the library boards, the friends of the libraries and all the communities we went to across the province.
The fact is that citizen-majority boards are a system that has worked and we know will continue to work. We truly fear we'll put the system in a very bad situation if they are not in place any longer. It's an appeal that I make on behalf of the four million library users in the province, in terms of the over 400 public library systems in the province.
Again, I would love to have the time to read the names of the people on this list in front of me. It's very important to them that the board structure be put that way. I think we recognize that when the minister put her bill forward, she was setting up a situation that could lead to the public library system in terms of the board system simply not working. It was a compromise that I don't think met the needs of what the library users in this province have made clear is needed. The fact is the library boards, as they are set up under the Public Libraries Act and as they would be if this amendment is passed, are extremely accountable. We all understand that municipalities already have line-by-line control of the library budgets. I think it's fair to say that most municipalities have found the system that works very effectively and are glad to have the system in place that they do.
I recognize this is somewhat different than the previous amendment this morning by my NDP colleague Mr Silipo, but I think it speaks to the same interest, which is the very strong feeling in all parts of this province that a citizen-majority board is a crucial element. I absolutely hope the government will use this opportunity to listen one last time and support this amendment.
Mr Silipo: Very briefly, I concur wholeheartedly with Mr Gravelle on this. I certainly will support the amendment. As he said, there are two important principles here, the most significant one being the maintaining of the majority of citizen members on the board, and the other in this case is suggesting a minimum of five members, which, as I indicated earlier, I'm certainly comfortable with. But that basic principle which we know is at the heart of the existence of the system of library boards, which have a majority of citizen members, is something the government proposes to do away with in its bill. I think they really are wrong in doing that, and I hope over the course of the break they've had an opportunity to think about that one last time, as Mr Gravelle says, and come to their senses on it.
Mr Shea: Notwithstanding the encouragement of Mr Silipo -- I have reviewed it -- he knows my position is still very firm on trusting the municipalities and trusting their capacity to appoint appropriate representatives for library purposes in the municipality. So I have grave difficulties in supporting the amendment.
More than that, I also express some concern that the recommendation is even more restrictive than the current act. It surprises me, for example, that the amendment defines "residents" in terms of their relationship with the establishing municipality and not those of municipalities contracting with the libraries. In that sense it is even more restrictive and for that reason is probably not one that might encourage NDP support, but certainly that's a concern I have.
Nevertheless, my overriding and fundamental position is consummate respect for the municipality and its ability to choose wisely. I'm sure you share that with me, that being a very stated position of AMO as well.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 17, Mr Gravelle. It is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 5 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Public notice of vacancies
"(6) The appointing council shall not appoint a person to fill a vacancy under subsection (5) until,
"(a) the clerk of the council has published a notice to the public in the municipality advising of the vacancy and inviting applications to fill it; and
"(b) 30 days have passed since the publication of thenotice."
Quite clearly this does set up a process which is legislatively mandated to advertise vacancies on library boards. This is something that I think has been called for for some time by the library community, and it's simply an opportunity to put in the bill something that makes a great deal of sense, to let the public know there are vacancies occurring so those people who are interested, and there are many who are, are aware of those vacancies, opening up the opportunity for people who might not otherwise be aware of a vacancy to apply for that position. I hope this would be one amendment the government could feel it could support.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 18, Mr Gravelle. It's another Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 6 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by inserting "subject to section 5," after "shall" in the third line.
This in essence refers back to the fact that there were amendments previously that dealt with the library boards, and I felt that if indeed we were successful with the previous motion, support for this would make a great deal of sense, which was of course looking for the protection of a majority of citizen participation on library boards.
Mr Gilchrist: If I might make a point, Mr Chair, since it refers to an amendment which was defeated, is this amendment not out of order?
The Chair: I agree. It's out of order.
Next, page 19.
1600
Mr Shea: I move that section 6 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out the first three lines and substituting "A council or councils, as the case may be, shall, in respect of the public library or county library cooperative established by them or their predecessors, pass a bylaw setting out."
I won't belabour that one. I think we're clear on it.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.
Page 20, which is a government motion, Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: I move that clause 6(a) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(a) the size of the board, not to be less than three members, and its composition."
Mr Silipo: We shouldn't let this go by without noting that of all the major issues that were brought through the hearings in front of this committee, this seems to be the only substantive issue on which the government is responding positively, that is, setting out a minimum number. On the other issues they are not, at least so far, and I fear they won't as we go through the rest of the bill. I'm happy that at least they've managed to find their way to supporting the notion that there should be a minimum number of members.
Mr Gravelle: I want to make the point as well that certainly one of the fears was that there would be no particular requirement in terms of numbers at all. That was a great concern we had. Clearly this does not meet the needs that we believe the library community has made clear and the people in the province have made clear, but I recognize this is an adjustment.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? The motion is carried.
Page 21 is a New Democratic amendment.
Mr Silipo: I move that subsection 8(4) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Same
"(4) The council of a municipality, county or regional municipality may, subject to the minister's approval, dissolve a public library board where the board has not maintained and operated a public library during the two-year period immediately preceding the dissolution."
The essential point here, if I may speak briefly to it, is that we're proposing, as I think has been suggested during the hearings, that a library board not be dissolved simply on the decision of the council, whatever the council may happen to be, without approval by the minister. Where a council wishes they are not to be any longer, there should at least be the requirement that this be done subject to the minister's approval and also a period of time during which the board has not operated in order for that action to be taken up.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 22 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 9 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Minister to table bylaws, agreements
"(3) The minister shall table a copy of every bylaw or agreement he or she receives under this section before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
This is important. As we go through this process and recognize that a number of the amendments we felt were very crucial, that would give us more assurance, are being defeated by the government, we feel very strongly a monitoring requirement needs to be in place so we can follow closely what's happening in terms of libraries, when some of them have been closed, when they are going through the amalgamation process and other such things. This is something I don't think is unreasonable, but what it does is it certainly requires the minister and the Legislative Assembly to be aware of what is absolutely happening by having them tabled in the Legislature.
I hope the government wouldn't find this difficult to support, or offensive, because it's just a question of information being readily available so we can monitor and follow this. I think a number of the amendments that deal with being able to at least try and monitor the situation are important. As I said, I hope this particular amendment -- and it would be nice to have one amendment supported by the government -- would help us keep track of what's happening.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 23 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that clause 10(1)(a) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by inserting "to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service" after "libraries" in the first and second lines." The word "libraries" is on two lines in the bill.
We view this as something to strengthen the language so the board not only operates, but it shall provide comprehensive and efficient public library services. This perhaps falls into somewhat of the same category I mentioned before. We just want the minister and the government to be accountable. Again, we've heard that is their intention. This is a minor change but one that is important, because it does strengthen this particular section. I hope it will no problem for the government to view this as something that does not put it in a difficult position. It doesn't make the bill read differently. It simply makes it stronger and more clear that that's what is expected under this bill.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 24 is a New Democratic motion.
Mr Silipo: I move that clause 10(1)(b) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "may" in the first line and substituting "shall."
It's just one word, but it's an important word. The section, as amended, would ensure that boards would be required to cooperate with other boards in order to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service linked to the province-wide public library network. This is simply saying that when it comes to the link within the different libraries, there would be a province-wide public library network. I know the minister has been very strong in saying that would continue to be the case, yet the legislation, as originally drafted, simply leaves that up to the various boards as to whether they would cooperate or not. We're saying there needs to be the same kind of direction here as there is with respect to some of the other duties and powers that have been outlined in this section for the boards.
I don't see, for example, why we say under sub (e) that the boards "shall" regulate the time and place etc of a notice to be given for the holding of public meetings but on something like the coordination of services or the cooperation between boards it's "may." Again, I hope this is something the government members can find acceptable, because as I see it and as I reflect upon what was said, changing the word from "may" to "shall" would be much closer to what the government has been saying it wants to do with respect to ensuring cooperation across the system.
Mr Gravelle: I want to support what Mr Silipo is saying. It's a minor change; it's an important one. It does very much tie in to what the minister has said publicly and would make a difference that is not profound but is significant. I hope it would be supported.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 25.
Mr Gravelle: Let's take another run at that. I think Mr Shea will comment on this.
I move that clause 10(1)(b) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(b) shall cooperate with other boards and the provincial government to access local, provincial, national and global information through the province-wide public library network."
Mr Silipo: I won't be offended if you support his amendments.
Mr Gravelle: Yes, exactly. Mr Silipo has made it clear that if you support this one, even though you didn't support his last one, he won't be offended. He will be pleased to have it passed.
It's a minor change, but it's significant, and it's one that ties right into what the minister has said publicly and I am sure will say publicly again. It would be awfully nice to have that adjustment made so her words can be reflected in the legislation.
1610
Mr Shea: I am enticed by your encouragement and by your kind words, but not trapped.
Mr Gravelle: Trapped?
Mr Shea: It is a little more prescriptive. For that reason, I would stay with the government's proposals.
Mr Gravelle: I'm stunned.
The Chair: Further debate? Could we have a vote on the motion?
All those in favour? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
Page 26 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that clause 10(1)(c) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by striking out "seek to" in the first line.
In other words, it would now read: "shall provide library services in the French language, where appropriate." I will be startled if the government doesn't support this. It's something that makes sense, to simply make that clear. I would hope that the striking out of those two words would not cause them any difficulty at all. It simply is one that clarifies the precise role, as I think it should, and I trust it's helpful.
The Chair: Further debate?
All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Sergio: He's startled.
The Chair: I guess he's startled.
Page 27 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that subsection 10(1) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following clauses:
"(d.1) shall hold regular meetings at least four times a year and at such other times as it considers necessary;
"(d.2) shall make board meetings open to the public, except where the board is of the opinion that intimate financial or personal matters may be disclosed and that the desirability of protecting against the consequences of their public disclosure outweighs the desirability of holding the meeting in public."
This is simply a legislative way of requiring that board meetings be public meetings. It's something that I think makes a great deal of sense. If you're going to have a library board, it makes sense to have public meetings and to have a certain required number every year. I would hope the government would support that.
The Chair: Is there further debate?
Mr Shea: Just to suggest to my colleague that indeed the government did listen very clearly and, as he will note, there is an amendment the government has put forward dealing with the public nature of meetings. But I appreciate his comments in that regard.
Mr Gravelle: So you're thinking of supporting this, in other words?
Mr Shea: No, I'll be supporting the government's amendment.
Mr Silipo: He's trying to make the wording better in this one.
Mr Gravelle: If it's close --
The Chair: We don't appear to have any further debate.
All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 28 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that clause 10(1)(n) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"(n) shall set policy on all matters connected with the management of the public library."
We think "shall set policy" is a better term. It reads now -- if I can just find it here -- "may regulate all matters connected with the management of the library." "May" suggests that the responsibilities may ultimately go elsewhere. I think we'd really want to be careful about that, because we're quite worried about that possibility, in terms of the responsibilities going elsewhere.
"Regulate" is a word that doesn't give one the greatest confidence. The concept of setting policies, as in "shall set policy," simply works better and is more directive and certainly seems more appropriately clear in terms of what the board should be doing. I would hope this would be considered not a major change, but one that clarifies things in a helpful way.
The Chair: Further debate?
All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is defeated.
Page 29 is a further Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that clause 10(2)(a) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be struck out.
This is important. It's a question of using any outside services or personnel. This clause, as written, is absolutely unnecessary. More important, it ultimately ends up being an attack on library workers themselves, or at least it sets up the situation where library workers will not be the ones who are doing the work. I think it's quite inflammatory.
There's no reason why this needs to be put in place, but more important, it's important to recognize that the people who work at the libraries are the ones who should be doing the job. This sets up a situation where we are talking about potential privatization and a situation where library workers themselves may not do the job. I consider it one that is clearly inflammatory and should be withdrawn by the government. I feel strongly about this and I know many others do as well. It's been an issue that has come up in a variety of public meetings as well. I would seek support on that.
Mr Silipo: Chair, as you will note, we have an identical amendment which follows, so I will speak to this one and just reiterate how important we believe it is to remove clause 10(2)(a) from the bill. That subsection (2) says:
"To the extent it considers it expedient, the board may,
"(a) use any outside services or personnel."
It gives the library boards the ability to privatize and contract out services, which we don't believe should be the case.
This is an issue that was raised by CUPE members and others throughout the presentations, about the importance of maintaining the library system with people who are direct employees of the library system and of the library board. I believe that's a very fundamental principle that this government should not be changing.
The Chair: Further debate?
All those in favour? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
Mr Silipo, are you going to read this motion in?
Mr Silipo: It's the same, Chair.
The Chair: Yes, it is. Are you withdrawing it?
Mr Silipo: I'm assuming you'd rule it out of order, since we just dealt with it.
The Chair: I would.
Page 31 is a government motion.
Mr Shea: I move that section 10 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Open meetings: exception
"(4) Board meetings shall be open to the public, except that where the board is of the opinion that intimate financial or personal matters may be disclosed at a meeting and that the desirability of protecting against the consequences of their public disclosure outweighs the desirability of holding the meeting in public, the board may hold that meeting in the absence of the public.
"Excluding person
"(5) Despite subsection (4), the presiding member may exclude any person from a meeting for improper conduct."
The Chair: Debate?
Mr Gravelle: I'm glad to see the government agrees there should be public meetings. I'm just curious. What would one define as "improper conduct"? How do you define that? Have you been able to do that? I'm just curious as to why you put that in.
Mr Shea: "Improper conduct" has been defined in Robert's Rules of Order; it's been defined in Bourinot; it's been in a number of sources. In most cases, the chairmen and chairwomen of meetings are quite capable of judging behaviour that's appropriate to the circumstance and the setting. I don't think one needs to spell it out beyond that.
Mr Gravelle: I think it's odd to have it in there.
Mr Silipo: Not to belabour that, but can anybody tell me whether that exists in the present act?
1620
Mr Shea: Yes, it does.
Mr Silipo: The same words?
Mr Shea: Yes.
Mr Silipo: So we're just reiterating the same words. Okay.
The Chair: Debate?
All those in favour? The motion is carried.
Page 32 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that subsection 11(2) of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by inserting "who shall be the chief librarian and" after "employee" in the first line.
This is a rather important point to put in. The way it reads now in the draft legislation is, "A board shall appoint an employee who shall...." It seems to me to have it read, "A board shall appoint an employee who shall be the chief librarian and who shall..." simply recognizes the importance and value of a chief librarian and the need to have a chief librarian in the library system.
It opens the door, and concerns me, flipping back to the outside service or personnel amendment to some degree. To say that you're appointing an employee who basically runs the system and to not call them a chief librarian seems a little unkind and harsh and unnecessary. It might be useful to simply define them as the chief librarian.
The Chair: Further debate?
All those in favour? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
Page 33 is a Liberal motion.
Mr Silipo: On a point of order, Chair: I'm curious in terms of how you're going through this. Are you going to go back and deal with the sections after we've done the amendments?
The Chair: Yes. We haven't finished section 2 yet. When we finish section 2, we'll vote on section 2, as amended. Then when we come to section 3, we'll vote on section 3.
Mr Silipo: Oh, I see. I was looking at them as subsections in the bill. That's fine.
The Chair: We're still on section 2 of the bill. Now I've lost where I am. Page 33.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 14 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Free core services
"(2) However, no fee or charge may be imposed for the following public library services:
"1. Admission of any person to a public library.
"2. Use by any person of a public library's collection in the library, regardless of format.
"3. Borrowing from a public library, by residents, of all circulating collection materials, regardless of format, including materials specially formatted for persons with a disability.
"4. Use by any person of a public library's reference and information services.
"Definition
"(3) In subsection (2),
"`resident' means a person who lives in the area of jurisdiction of the public library board."
This is a very important area in terms of this entire bill and what was one of the absolute key issues at the public hearings, one of the key issues that people such as the ones I mentioned several times have written in on, that have been made clear to us by many of the library users in the province and those who care about libraries, and most of all those who care about accessibility.
On core services, the government will say, "We're providing core services to print material." It just seems to me to be absurd, when you've got a government that's providing material in almost all fashions in electronic format to libraries, to not guarantee that access to that information will be free. There are many other examples of that. This is truly an accessibility issue.
The government may say, and perhaps we'll be hearing this shortly, that user fees will not be a real burden and this will make up for the lost transfer payments. But when you define core services in such a narrow way when the world is changing, when we're being told about how much the world is changing, and you put the libraries in the position where they are forced to use user fees in order to just maintain themselves, you reduce the usage and the availability of it to a large segment of the population. People know that is the case.
It also comes down to whether or not you believe that libraries should be accessible to all, whether or not you believe that libraries are a place of lifelong learning, whether or not you believe that libraries are the place where people -- they're one of the most democratic places we have in our society. They are a gathering place and a community centre in many circumstances. Certainly, up in northwestern Ontario, I can tell you that in communities like Ignace, Dryden, Geraldton, Longlac, Beardmore, all these communities that made presentations, it's very important that these places remain very open to people and they are accessible to people.
The definition of core service continually came up as being way too narrow and not being fair to the people who should access the service, and the fact that services are changing, the fact that so much information is coming through the electronic format. I think it's important. It's very important also not to view a lot of the material that is available as being frivolous. We had various committee members making comments about the video collections in libraries. If you go and visit a library, you'll see how important the video collection is; it's not a frivolous collection.
As I say, this is one of the three core issues that we've been pointing at. There are a lot of things we're concerned about in this bill. We're very concerned about the system truly changing. I do think this is the one that is putting the existence of the libraries and their ability to carry on and their ability to have themselves as a truly open and democratic place where everybody can come in, people of all ages, people of all means -- when you start setting up a system that basically means accessing it is determined by your ability to pay, you are changing how fairly we view the world. We all recall this week there was an editorial in the Toronto Star, "Saving Libraries," which I think made the point very clearly.
It comes down to whether or not the minister and the ministry and this government believe that libraries should be truly accessible to people. I don't think you can get away with saying that by limiting core services to print material, you are doing that. This is an issue that's quite emotional. I've talked to a number of people about it and I'm sure I will be talking about it afterwards.
It's one way the government is making a big mistake and, perhaps more significantly, going in a direction that is going to damage the ability of the libraries to truly function in the way they need to and simply be open to the public. If we really care about the public and we care about literacy and we care about the education system, limiting core services in the manner that you have is unacceptable. I speak on behalf of a huge number of people when I ask that this amendment be given serious consideration.
Mr Silipo: This is truly one of the main issues in this bill. There are two things that are happening. First of all, I should just note that we have a similar amendment to Mr Gravelle's. The wording is different but the result is the same, with the one exception that ours amplifies the definition of "resident" in the second subsection a little bit more, to take into account people other than those who live in the jurisdiction, as we have in other sections of the bill.
Let me just come back to the main issue, which is that one of the things the government is doing by this bill is taking out of the existing act, the Public Libraries Act, the protection that now exists in law that access to libraries and the use of library materials should be free of charge, and secondly, that the borrowing of materials from libraries should be free of charge.
Those two protections, those two rights exist now in law. The government is proposing to take those completely out of the legislation, and the only thing it has offered in its stead is a regulation to be made under the Municipal Act, which doesn't even protect to the same extent what is in the act right now.
For both of those reasons -- because they're taking the protection or the right that all of us as citizens of Ontario now have out of the legislation and putting it into regulation, and then they're watering down that right to say -- at least in the draft I have, which was tabled, I understand, when the bill was tabled -- that the only materials people can borrow from public libraries free of charge would be books or other printed material. Materials such as cassettes, materials available through the computer system, people would have to pay for those.
1630
If we're even half-serious about the notion of information, not just in the foreseeable future but today, we know that information comes at us now no longer just in printed material but it comes to us electronically. Surely if we're serious about saying that libraries ought to continue to provide services generally free of charge to our citizens, and that we pay for those services, because they are good basic services, through our taxes, that protection should, first of all, continue to be in the legislation, not in regulation. People know that regulations can be changed without notice to anybody. They can be changed simply by cabinet decision, whereas the protection in the law at least would mean that any contemplated change would have to go through the Parliament. Second, if we're serious about access to information, as I say, not just in the future but today, given the changes that are happening all around us, then I can't understand why the government would want to take out the protection of free access to materials that are not in print, that is, electronic materials.
For both of those reasons, I just can't for the life of me understand, unless of course the government wants or expects that there will be significant user fees, which we have been saying will be the case and which we have been saying is one of the tradeoffs they have made with municipalities on this. They expect to see a variety of user fees come into effect, and by taking this protection out of the law and putting it into regulation, they are facilitating that happening and facilitating more and more changes being made over the course of the next couple of years that would allow for more and more user fees to be established simply by regulation; or not even by regulation, because they would be able to do it subject to any restrictions imposed by regulations.
For both of those reasons, I find this one of the most offensive parts of the bill. I don't have a sense that the government's going to change its mind at this point, but I hope members of the government really think this one through. If you can't support our amendments on this one today, there's still time before the bill becomes law, as we take it back to the House. This is one on which you're making I think a major, major mistake.
Mr Shea: Just to rejoin that in part, as my colleagues know, Bill 26 does in fact set out rules for boards. It does address a number of the issues raised in this Liberal amendment. But the amendment also raises a question, I think rightfully so, because it came out of the hearing, and that is the definition of "collections," and therein there has been some misunderstanding.
The bill may refer to the print material, and certainly the books, but there is no question in the mind of the government that there will be a best-practices description of collections. Indeed I think it would be worded somewhat in the fashion of "all informational materials and resources which have been purchased, leased, licensed, created or otherwise acquired by the library specifically for multiple use by the public." I think that begins to address some of the concerns, particularly as we're dealing with some of the electronic concerns and the shift that's been taking place in materials provided for the libraries.
In that sense I am heartened to hear my colleagues set out wording that is an echo of Bill 26 and some of the provisions provided therein. I give them comfort that a best-practices model will be forthcoming.
Mr Silipo: A question of Mr Shea, if I may. Is he saying that the government will change the proposed regulation to ensure that the borrowing of materials, including non-print materials, will be free of charge?
Mr Shea: What I'm saying to you is that (a) a best-practices model will be presented, and (b) the regulations, as you know, can always be expanded rather than detracted. So that's the good news about regulations.
The Chair: Any further debate?
Mr Silipo: I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult. I don't understand that answer. Does that mean they will or they won't?
Mr Shea: They will not.
Mr Silipo: They will not be charged.
Mr Shea: There are no changes contemplated. There may be some expansions to regulations and there will also be a best-practices model that is presented.
Mr Silipo: Here's my problem. I have in front of me a document that says: "Regulation to amend Ontario regulation 26/96 made under the Municipal Act." This I gather is what was tabled with us at the time the bill was introduced, which sets out the intended regulation that the government would pass under section 14. Right? Under that it says:
"(2) A municipality or local board does not have the power...to impose fees or charges for,
"(b) use by the public of its libraries' collections in the library;
"(c) borrowing from a public library, by residents, of books and other printed material."
It means they can charge for non-print materials to be borrowed. That's why I was asking, is this going to be changed? Does what Mr Shea said earlier mean that in fact the government is intending to change this regulation to also ensure that borrowing from a public library of non-print materials will be free of charge?
Mr Shea: I don't see this changing, if that's the question you're asking.
Mr Silipo: Then what was all that you said earlier about?
Mr Shea: In terms of the electronic. One of the concerns being raised by Mr Gravelle is about electronics.
The Chair: Have you two finished? Mr Gravelle would like to jump in here.
Mr Silipo: I'm sorry. I don't want to be difficult. What I'm hearing from Mr Shea is that it will still be possible, under the regulation he contemplates the government passing for non-print materials people borrow from the library, that those will be subject to a fee.
Mr Shea: I want to go back over it again. What we're trying to do is ensure that we understand what is being said when we talk about libraries' collections. There has been concern that it has been interpreted to mean only print material. What the government wants to do is ensure that we understand it is not just print material that is being referred to, that in fact collections may very well involve electronic media. That will be spelled out.
Mr Silipo: Right, and that's what I understood at first, but then the term "libraries' collections" is only used in one subsection of the proposed regulation. In the next one it talks about borrowing, and there it refers to "materials." What I'm looking for is that you will apply the same broader concept that you're describing around collections also with respect to the borrowing.
Mr Shea: The point I'm trying to raise with you is that at this juncture the best-practices model will be sent to all of the libraries -- and you understand that process -- and it will detail very clearly the interpretation of the electronic collections. If there is any difficulty with the following of that best practices, then it is possible that a descriptive regulation could follow, but at this point it seems unnecessary.
Mr Silipo: That's even more fascinating, then.
The Chair: My concern, Mr Silipo, is that we're talking about a regulation which this committee really --
Mr Shea: -- has not seen.
Mr Silipo: That's part of my point, Chair, that in effect what the government is doing here is moving into regulation a basic right and protection that now exists in law.
The Chair: You're talking about a draft document which I've never seen and I don't know whether other members of the committee have seen. I don't mind you talking about it except that it has nothing to do with the motion, other than for persuasive value to vote for or against it.
1640
Mr Silipo: That's exactly why I'm using it. I'm trying to make the point that two things are being done here that I believe are wrong. The first is that the protections that now exist for every citizen of the province to have free access and use of materials -- print materials and non-print materials -- in libraries across this province are being taken out of the legislation; and second, that the right to borrow those materials free of charge is being taken out of the legislation, and what we are getting instead is going to be put into regulation, because you'll have to do a regulation at the end of the day. That's what section 14 says. Otherwise you won't be able to charge anything. So you're going to have to do a regulation, because that's what you intend to do.
I'm trying to persuade the government members particularly, because I know I don't have time to persuade the people on this side of the table, that they are taking a basic right we now have as citizens and doing away with it, and I'm not sure they've understood the implications of that.
Mr Shea: Clearly I disagree with that. That is exactly what the government is not doing. The fact is that we may well be dealing with two different acts, and that may be troublesome for my colleague. There is still the free access to the library. There still is the free access to the books and the print material. We have indicated that indeed the electronic material will be identified through best practices and we expect that will be followed. So there is no shift in what is happening right now, but as library services expand and change, there may well be some areas where they may charge some fees that they don't now charge -- there may be.
The Chair: I'm going to let Mr Gravelle say some words.
Mr Gravelle: It has been a fascinating conversation. On the one hand, Mr Shea, you're talking about electronic format material potentially being available, but I don't know why you wouldn't put it in the legislation, for God's sake. I'm not sure if you're speaking on behalf of the minister or making a statement on behalf of the government. You give us on the one hand some sense that it may be more than what it reads. "This is what `collections' may mean." But one can't help but be a tad suspicious when you're not willing to put it down in the legislation. Certainly the concern about having it in regulations is one that I think is extremely valid. If it at least is put in the legislative format, if it's at least put in there, it can't be changed quietly, as can be done the way it is set up now. That is a concern we have. It's a legitimate concern.
One knows that the reason it's taken out of legislation is so that you're not going to have to have people like myself and Mr Silipo saying: "Hold on here. We don't accept that." Things can be done. I don't think you should be simply expecting us to say, "Thank you very much," because if you're not willing to put this into part of the legislation, I'm not sure why we should be particularly happy at all.
The fact is, as Mr Silipo said, and it's certainly my point, there are rights of citizens that are literally being taken away and changed as a result of things being taken out of this legislation. The words you've used to try and assuage us to some degree I don't think are very reassuring because I don't know if there's any guarantee. Or can you guarantee that indeed what you suggested in terms of better practices will absolutely happen? That's something we would love to hear. It won't by any means answer all the concerns, it won't deal with what we think needs to happen, but it will be interesting to hear.
The Chair: Was there further debate, Mr Silipo? Mr Shea? Then we appear to be ready to vote on this Liberal motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Silipo has, on page 34, a New Democratic motion.
Mr Silipo: I move that section 14 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:
"Free services
"(2) However, no fee or charge may be imposed for the following public library services:
"1. Admitting any person to a library.
"2. Allowing any person to use materials in the library.
"3. Allowing a resident to borrow materials from a circulating collection, regardless of the format of the materials.
"4. Allowing a resident with a disability to borrow materials specially formatted for persons with that disability, or allowing another person to borrow them on the resident's behalf.
"5. Allowing a resident access to electronic information and means of communication, whether in the library or from another location. This paragraph does not apply to information services (such as searches) that library staff may perform at a user's request.
"Definition
"(3) In subsection (2),
"`resident' means a resident of a municipality whose council appoints the members of the board, or a resident of a municipality or local service board area or a member of a band, as the case may be, that has a contract with the board under section 29."
Briefly, as I indicated earlier, this motion would set out those basic services that we believe ought to be free of charge for both use in the library and the borrowing of materials. Again, I reiterate my strong opposition to what the government is doing in taking this protection out of the legislation.
Mr Gravelle: I just wanted to give my strong support, if I may, for the NDP motion. I think it even adds a helpful part about allowing another person to borrow them on the disabled resident's behalf. That's a good addition to the amendment and I'm very strongly supporting him and hoping that -- well, I guess there's no point hoping, Chair.
The Chair: Never give up hope.
Mr Gravelle: I never will, Chair, but it seems fairly apparent that on this issue, as important as it is, somehow the government is not listening.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Are there further amendments to section 2 of the bill? Shall section 2, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 2, as amended, is carried.
Are there amendments to section 3? Shall section 3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 3 is carried.
Are there amendments to section 4? Shall section 4 carry? All those in favour? We have to raise our hands, folks. All those opposed? Section 4 has carried.
I believe now, Mr Gravelle, we are on to page 35, which is an amendment to section 5.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following as section 28 of the Public Libraries Act:
"Inspection of records
"28. Anyone may, during ordinary business hours, inspect any information in a board's possession or control, except information that,
"(a) in the board's opinion, is of an intimate financial or personal nature; or
"(b) identifies an individual user of library services by name or makes him or her readily identifiable by other means."
This is an amendment that we think is very important. It came up at a variety of the public meetings. I think I know what Mr Shea is going to say in response to this. He's going to suggest that the municipal freedom of information act protects the confidentiality of library records. Having said that, it seems to me there is no reason why this legislation should not include special provisions on confidentiality for libraries. I could doublecheck. I know that because this issue came up a variety of times and there was a level of concern that it was not in Bill 109. People had some concern about it. May I say just from the point of view of assuring the public and those people who use it and the board, when they are looking at this bill they will see that it's there rather than simply saying, "Don't worry, you will be protected under the other act."
I hope the government side would acquiesce on this point and recognize it from the point of view of security and making people feel assured this is there, and they would consider supporting this amendment.
Mr Shea: I do understand the issue that Mr Gravelle raises. In fact it was raised by several deputants during the hearings and we were particularly concerned about that. I know he anticipated my comments, because we have chatted about this, indeed at his request.
I also pursued more information about that just to make sure we were very clear about what was happening. He will know that my response would simply remind us that the public library boards are institutions under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. They are covered by it. Access to information and protection of personal information is protected, and the rights and protections are superior, frankly, to the wordings we find on this page 35 of the documents. It's probably better to keep it that way so that we don't find there are contradictions and confusions.
The final point is, is it better to place some more information in here even if it's flawed wording to at least give some sense of reassurance? I would suggest not. It is far better to have very clear, crisp, defensible language, as we have it in the Municipal Act, rather than to clutter and cloud it here and create additional confusion. For that reason, I can't support 35. But I do give comfort to Mr Gravelle that in fact it is addressed.
1650
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Silipo, page 36.
Mr Silipo: This is a similar amendment to the one we've just dealt with except that there's a change in terms of who exercises the discretion.
I move that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding the following as section 28 of the Public Libraries Act:
"Inspection of records
"28. Anyone may, during ordinary business hours, inspect any information in a board's possession or control, except information that,
"(a) in the opinion of the board's chair or secretary, is of an intimate financial or personal nature; or
"(b) identifies an individual user of library services by name or makes him or her readily identifiable by other means."
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? That motion is defeated.
Are there further amendments to section 5? Shall section 5 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 5 is carried.
We are turning to section 6. Are there any amendments to section 6? Shall section 6 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 6 is carried.
We are on to page 37, Mr Gravelle, which you can read, although I indicated some concern with it to you privately.
Mr Gravelle: I look forward to your ruling, Chair.
I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:
"6.1 The act is amended by adding the following section:
"Annual reports
"35.1(1) The annual report required by clause 35(2)(c) shall set out the board's size and composition, information on the use of its collections and services over the previous year and such other information as the minister may request.
"Reports tabled
"(2) The minister shall table all the reports submitted under clause 35(2)(c) and under section 37 before the assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session."
The Chair: Before you get into your rationale, I have problems with that. Sections 35 and 37 aren't yet opened, and I believe you can't do something indirectly that you can't do directly. I therefore, subject to your comments, believe this motion is out of order.
Mr Gravelle: I plead for help among my colleagues in this. I can't argue on your point other than that I certainly am prepared to argue the value of the amendment. But if you're asking me to argue in terms of why it should be in order, on that basis --
The Chair: I believe it's a procedural problem.
Mr Gravelle: Yes, and I'm afraid I haven't had an opportunity to make a case for how it should be in order. I guess I don't have to withdraw it, because you're going to rule it out of order.
The Chair: Mr Silipo wants to say something.
Mr Silipo: Just on that procedural point, I can't remember the details, but I know when we were dealing in the House with Bill 103, I raised the point with the Speaker on a couple of government amendments that, in my view, amended sections of the bill that had not been amended by the original bill and made the argument to him that those should be ruled out of order. His ruling was that in fact they were in order because they dealt with the bill as a whole. If I remember correctly the ruling, and again I'm just going by memory, then surely the same should apply here, where what Mr Gravelle is proposing is an amendment to a part of the bill that is clearly in front of us. I understand and appreciate that the particular subsection hasn't been amended by the bill, but I think the whole act is clearly in front of us, because many of the sections are being amended. On that basis, you should allow it.
Mr Shea: Even if it were in order, and I concur that it is not, in fact what's being referred to are reports from the OLS. That's why I think there may be some misunderstanding by my colleague in this regard.
Mr Gravelle: I appreciate Mr Silipo's assistance on this. My lack of experience perhaps is showing. I'll have to be more clear in terms of procedure. I hope the Chair will rule this in order.
The Chair: I'm a new Chair, but I have a problem with it.
Mr Gravelle: Mr Silipo's point is quite useful.
The Chair: Yes, I do recall, Mr Silipo, some discussion in the House on this. I believe this is a fairly blatant -- and I say that kindly -- contravention, and I'm going to rule the motion out of order.
Mr Silipo: Obviously not questioning your ruling, because we can't -- well, we can, but we won't waste the time of the committee.
The Chair: No, you can't question it. We're going to move on to section 7.
Mr Silipo: We could ask that it be appealed, but I won't do that.
The Chair: Yes, you could.
Mr Silipo: I just wanted to be clear. Are you ruling that it's out of order because it doesn't amend a section that's before us? I just want to be clear on the basis for your ruling.
The Chair: I don't think I can be any clearer. It is trying to amend sections that haven't been opened in the bill, and that's the rationale for it. I appreciate that the Speaker of the House has dealt with similar issues. I think this is fairly clear. I can't recall the specific questions, and in his discretion he made the decision as you indicated. But in this particular case, I think it's fairly clear, with due respect to Mr Gravelle, that that's what he's trying to do.
We're on to section 7. That is on page 38, which is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 7 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"7. Section 38 of the act is repealed."
In essence, this amendment reinstates section 30 of the Public Libraries Act. As I think members will know, we are in essence asking the government to restore the provincial grant to libraries by keeping section 30 in there.
The fact is -- and I think the point needs to be made and it probably can't be made often enough -- that this whole exercise is quite frankly about dumping billions of dollars of responsibilities on municipalities and making this library bill part of that dumping. It's dreadful to think that this government is going to put the municipalities in a position where they're going to be forced to make decisions based on a smaller availability of funds themselves. They're going to have more pressures on them and be forced to make choices between valuable services and needed services, choices that are going to be difficult between hard and soft services. We know municipalities have been very strongly supportive of libraries, and I sure don't want anybody else to suggest that we've said otherwise, because none of us ever have. We recognize that municipalities are extremely supportive of libraries.
By removing section 30, by removing the provincial grants to libraries -- I explained it this morning as best I could, even when I had my motion put forward -- this is doing extraordinary damage to the library system in this province. There are simply going to be libraries, library branches and library systems that will not be able to survive because of the pressure municipalities are under. They will not be able to make up the funding. In many cases, it will be an absolute battle for them to maintain the level of funding because of the pressures they're going to face.
1700
I wish the government would offer some guarantee that if indeed the exercise is not revenue-neutral, because we know it won't be but they seem to still want to say that it is, it will find some way to protect libraries. Libraries are a special institution in our society and they are an important place for all of us. I feel very strongly that we have to fight as vigorously as possible to maintain our libraries.
Ultimately, when all is said and done and branches are closing and communities are losing their libraries -- and smaller communities are losing their libraries altogether -- the government and the minister will rue this day. I wish there was a way to get the government to try and change its tack. The fact is, it's part of a larger exercise. The fact is, this bill has no need to be here. The Public Libraries Act works perfectly well. It's clear with all the evidence over the last couple of months since the bill was first introduced, in terms of the responses we've got in terms of the public hearings, that it's important to maintain some form of provincial funding to the library system and to the individual libraries in this province.
I cannot find the words. I won't pretend. I am actually feeling quite tired, depressed and sad about it, because you go through this process and you work very hard to get to this point, to get to clause-by-clause, and you actually believe -- and maybe it's because I am a new member -- and you actually hope there will be an opportunity, because of what happened at the public hearings, because of what people have told you, because of the messages being sent out, something will happen in the clause-by-clause process that will make you think that the government was listening; the government recognizes this is a danger; the government sees, despite their agenda -- which is fair game; they got elected with a majority -- they really are listening.
I'm finding my voice breaking and my energy going, but I can promise you I will continue the good fight regardless. But I find it disappointing that this particular bill is in place and this aspect of funding which is so crucial to the survival of the library system is being taken away. I close with those words and hope and pray -- why not? -- that perhaps the government will at the 11th hour recognize the error of their ways and support this amendment.
The Chair: We had substantial debate on this topic this morning, but is there further debate on this section?
Mr Silipo: Just briefly, Chair. We have an identical amendment, as you'll note, which follows. I won't belabour the point except to say that this is of course one of the key changes the government is making in removing any funding responsibility. We think it's wrong. We think the system we have in place now works fairly well. It means that in most municipalities the large responsibility financially is carried out by the municipalities but there continues to be an involvement by the province which, even in cases where it is, percentagewise, small, 6%, 7%, 8%, it is still significant both in terms of dollars and in terms of what it says to people in different parts of the province about the fact that the province still has an interest in the public library system.
This action by the government removes that responsibility entirely. It does it on a pretence that there's going to be an even trade with other costs, which we expect to see will not be there. We think it's doubly wrong in terms of how they're doing it and why they're doing it.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Silipo, page 39 is much the same. I assume you're withdrawing it. If not, I'll be ruling it out of order.
Mr Silipo: I'm assuming you're going to rule it out of order.
The Chair: Page 39 is out of order.
Are there further amendments to section 7?
Shall section 7 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 7 is carried.
We will move on to section 8, which is on page 40. It's a Liberal motion, Mr Gravelle.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 39 of the Public Libraries Act, as set out in section 8 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Regulations
"39. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
"(a) respecting the establishment, organization and management of the province-wide public library network;
"(b) prescribing conditions for the purpose of section 30."
This of course allows for the development of regulations for the disbursement of funds to libraries by the provincial government. It sounds like a terrific idea. Why not keep making a run at this? I've got a hunch you might --
Mr Shea: I know it's another way to get grants.
Mr Gravelle: You can't prescribe something that has been taken away, I guess.
The Chair: This section hinges upon the previous section that we voted on, and I believe it's out of order, as is the next one. The next two motions are out of order. Quite frankly, page 42 is out of order. Perhaps we should vote on section 8.
Shall section 8 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 8 is carried.
There appears to be one amendment for section 9, Mr Gravelle. It's out of order. We're just going to vote for or against it.
Mr Gravelle: It's a new section, though, is it? Are you sure it's out of order?
The Chair: I believe it is.
Mr Gravelle: Even though it's a separate section?
The Chair: If you're going to move it, I'm going to rule it out of order.
Mr Gravelle: So I can't read it? Are you ruling it out of order?
The Chair: If you want to read it in, sure, go ahead.
Mr Gravelle: Section 9 of the bill, section 41 of the Public Libraries Act: The Liberal Party recommends voting against section 9 of the bill.
The Chair: All those in favour of section 9? All those opposed? Section 9 is carried.
Are there further amendments to section 10? Shall section 10 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Section 10 is carried.
Are there further amendments to section 11? Shall section 11 carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 11 is carried.
We're now moving into section 12. There is a government motion on page 43, Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: I move that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Commencement
"12(1) This act comes into force on the later of December 1, 1997 and the day this act receives royal assent.
"Transition
"(2) Despite subsection (1), the Public Libraries Act, as it read on January 1, 1997, continues to apply in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and in its area municipalities until the later of January 1, 1998 and the day this act comes into force; effective the later of January 1, 1998 and the day this act comes into force, this act applies in the city of Toronto.
"Same
"(3) Despite subsection (1), the Public Libraries Act, as it read on January 1, 1997, continues to apply in any municipality that is the subject of a restructuring order made before this act comes into force under section 25.2 or 25.3 of the Municipal Act and that is effective after the day this act comes into force; effective the day that the restructuring order is effective, this act applies in the restructured municipality.
"Same
"(4) If a restructuring order described in subsection (3) provides for the dissolution of an existing public library board, union public library board or county library board, section 3 of the Public Libraries Act, as re-enacted by section 2 of this act, does not apply in the restructured municipality."
I think it's pretty clear. Everybody can probably recite that back to me now. It was a fairly clear amendment and --
The Chair: We'll soon find out, Mr Shea.
1710
Mr Shea: It is obvious, Mr Chairman, and you, being a lawyer of great distinction, will know that it's to make certain that only the new councils elected in 1997 have the powers proposed in Bill 109. The commencement date has been revised. The transition provision in subsection 12(2) has been included to deal with the city of Toronto situation where the new council does not take office until January 1, 1998. The transition provisions found in subsections 12(3) and (4) deal with any amalgamations that might occur where the new council does not take office until after December 1, 1997. So it's a fairly simple amendment in that sense.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour? Opposed? It's carried.
Shall section 12, as amended, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 12, as amended, is carried.
Section 13, Mr Gravelle. We're on to page 44.
Mr Gravelle: I move that section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Short title
"13. The short title of this act is the Local Control and Provincial Accountability of Public Libraries Act, 1997."
Chair, this has certainly been a recurring theme and perhaps it doesn't have as much relevance now that we're at the end of the day and there has been no success at having the minister's or the government's accountability and responsibility put into the bill. But having said that, I still would seek support from all the members of the committee, again because this is what the minister has been saying publicly, that she believes it is part of a provincial accountability.
We know it's really not there. I still think it's worthwhile taking a run at it, if I may, to Mr Shea. It would be again a move that will at least recognize and acknowledge some attempt by the government to accept that there is some provincial accountability. What we've seen today, unfortunately, is the government certainly did not respond favourably to any of the amendments that have come forward at the public hearings in any real fashion at all. I think it's still incredibly important that the minister and this government accept accountability, and on that basis I call on all members to support changing the short title of the act.
Mr Shea: Just a very quick comment in rejoinder. While I think my colleague is trying to improve upon the wording, I don't think anything could possibly improve upon the present wording, "An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level." I think it recognizes the partnership that this government is about with the municipal governments and I'm sure my colleague would endorse and support that principle.
Mr Gravelle: Wait till you get the next amendment.
Mr Shea: Yes, I saw that one.
The Chair: Shall section 13, which is the short title of the -- no, I'm sorry. I guess I can't do that yet, can I? You're not serious, are you?
Interjections.
The Chair: We're going to vote on Mr Gravelle's motion. Shall the motion carry? All those in favour? Opposed? That is defeated.
Now, Mr Silipo?
Mr Silipo: I move, Chair, that section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"Short title
"The short title of this act is the End of Free Access to Information and End of Citizen Participation in Governance of Public Libraries Act, 1997."
I would have been very happy not to have had to move this amendment. But I did draft it on the assumption, which unfortunately has been proven correct, that the government really wasn't interested in listening to any substantive amendments that either I had or that Mr Gravelle had which reflected very much the kinds of things we've heard during the committee process.
I wasn't able to be with the committee in the travels throughout the province because we were dealing at the time, as you'll recall, with Bill 103 and so I was in the House carrying out that other part of my critic responsibilities. But I know from talking to my colleague Mr Tony Martin, the member for Sault Ste Marie, who did carry out that responsibility for us, as well as looking over the materials that came back and the summary and a number of the presentations, that the issues we have been dealing with today through amendments are really the issues that people have talked about during this whole process. That is that we are ending, through this new law that the government seems to be intent on passing, free access to the library system.
Whatever they're going to do with this new regulation, it's going to be less protection than exists now: first of all, simply by virtue of the fact that it will be in regulation and not in the laws of the province, not in an act of the Parliament of the province; secondly, because it will dilute the protection that's there, because I didn't take much comfort from what Mr Shea said to me on that aspect.
It will end, in a significant way, citizen participation in the governance of public libraries. We know that we have a history in this province going back over 100 years that ensures citizen participation and citizen control of public library boards. This government has not given, in my view, one good, solid reason why that should change, why over 100 years of history should just be wiped out simply because they struck a deal with AMO and because they coughed up in that deal control for the library system to be handed over to the municipalities.
There is no good policy rationale for doing that. There is no good policy rationale for wiping out 100 years of history in this province simply because you want to strike a deal with AMO. I really feel very, very strongly that what this government is doing here with this piece of legislation is just fundamentally wrong and at the very least, they should have the honesty to reflect in the title what they're actually doing.
The Chair: I was going to rule it out of order, but I don't want to get into a -- it probably is.
Mr Shea: If you're ruling it out of order, Chairman, then I won't belabour the point, but obviously I would address this quite firmly if you were not. So since you are, I won't speak to it.
The Chair: Mr Silipo, it does take a negative spin, and clearly, you're entitled to make a negative spin on the entire piece of legislation, I suppose. But it doesn't necessarily, in the Chair's view, accurately describe the description of the bill, which is what the purpose of a short title is to do. Accordingly, I am going to rule this amendment out of order. We will proceed to voting.
Shall section 13, which is the short title of the bill, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? Section 13, which is the short title of the bill, is carried.
We will now proceed to the long title of the bill. There is a Liberal motion.
Mr Gravelle: I move that the long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to put authority, responsibility and accountability for providing and effectively managing local library services at the local level and to ensure provincial responsibility and accountability for the maintenance and development of Ontario's public library network."
I am very conscious that this is probably my last opportunity to speak about this bill. I believe it's our last amendment.
The Chair: There is a further motion, if you recall. Mr Shea, I assume, is going to make a motion, so there will be a motion in due course, but you are free to speak on it.
Mr Gravelle: But it's the last amendment by our caucus.
The Chair: Yes, it is.
Mr Gravelle: If I may refer back to the previous motion that was deemed out of order, I think it was a sad but accurate version of what this bill ultimately will mean.
I guess the proof will be in the pudding, Chair. Sorry to use a tired cliché, but it just seems to be appropriate in the sense that we're going to have to prove this to the government. The evidence is certainly clear. There is a need for the government to maintain responsibility for involvement and for some accountability for the library system in this province; it's not just a need, it's the way it should be. It's a proud and long tradition in this province that I truly feel is sadly coming to an end.
1720
We are going to be seeing a patchwork of library systems across the province. We're going to see the interlibrary loan program being truly threatened. We're going to see small branches close, we're going to see small libraries close. We're going to see communities lose something that's truly at the heart of their communities. We're going to watch as accessibility to libraries is reduced and particularly reduced for those people who perhaps are the most vulnerable. We're going to watch as the system, quite frankly, changes in a very negative way.
It can't be forgotten that this government had an opportunity to listen to what the public said. As I have pointed out on more than one occasion -- and if I had the time, I would read these and I will find an opportunity to read these petitions in the Legislature -- one goes through the public meetings -- certainly I was there at every one of them and I listened very closely and I recognize that the message was coming across loud and clear. One has to wonder: Why do you have these hearings unless the government does listen and make some substantial amendments, that just simply weren't made?
I think it is a sad day. I believe this is a bill, in all honesty, that is doing a disservice to the people. It is, without question, tied into the downloading process that's going on against municipalities. I accept and understand the municipal position in terms of this bill simply because they're being put in a dreadful corner and are being forced to take on responsibilities in a variety of areas which they don't want to take on.
I would ask, in terms of this amendment, that it be looked at seriously. It's not in any way offensive. I don't think there's anything in it that the minister would find very difficult to support. Again, as we've said so many times, the minister does view this as being a bill that actually does speak of accountability. Mr Shea has used the word more than once today. We would just feel there might be at least some level of assurance if this one amendment, the last one we're putting forward for the day, could be supported, to at least throw some olive branch to the library community and recognize that there is a need to accept some responsibility and accountability by the province.
The Chair: Further debate? Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: Perhaps I'll wait. There is one more amendment coming up from the NDP caucus, is there not, Chair? I think maybe I'll wait and I'll use my comments there for summary.
The Chair: To warn you, I will probably make the same ruling as I did on the amendment on page 45.
Mr Silipo: Speak now.
The Chair: If anybody wants a shot, now is the time.
Mr Shea: Then I will make a comment very briefly, because I regret the words chosen by my colleague. In many ways he has shown little regard and respect for municipal councillors and it distresses me.
There is an underlying assumption that there will be a malicious or intentional dismantling of services in municipalities that I think shows a cavalier disregard for the due diligence that, to my knowledge, all councillors bring to their position. It shows disregard for a request by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to indeed proceed down this as part of our Who Does What procedure, one that AMO has long asked for because of the confusion that has been taking place in the tax world of our province, to ensure that taxpayers know who is doing what, who is paying for what, whom should we hold accountable.
I regret the tone. I know it's not put forward unkindly and I know that my colleague from Port Arthur is trying to respect and speak on behalf of the library community and I do have regard for that, and the minister does. I want to make that very clear.
But the bottom line, what we're really suggesting is that in this restructuring the province is not withdrawing from library services. What we're beginning to do is say there is a new way of forging this partnership. I don't see any changes in the financial structuring nor do I see councillors who are lurking in the shadows waiting to pounce upon libraries and library boards to dismantle them and to cast them into the nether regions -- quite the reverse. In fact I think what this does is for the first time place the members of council directly in the public venue for accountability, which takes place at least once every three years. It is not something that necessarily happens to the library boards, and for that reason I agree with the spirit of Bill 26 and I agree with what flows out of it.
My colleague and I will disagree on this because we've not had a meeting of minds as we've gone through on this one cardinal principle of democracy, and I won't bend on that and I don't think the minister and I know the government certainly won't bend on it. That's extremely important. I share the government's view that the library system requires some exciting conversations in the future and I have no doubt that will be undertaken in very short order. But to suggest that this act is in any way taking away from libraries or their future is quite misleading.
More than that, the final point is this. My colleagues across have made a spirited defence of the library system based upon the act of 1984. What they've really said is, "It's working so you don't have to do anything," end of story. They've said it more elegantly than that but that's essentially what they've been saying. The words that come back to haunt me are these:
"I have talked to librarians who have told me this is it for them, that if the minister wants to bring in a law that says municipal councils can determine line-by-line budgeting of the library boards, then let the municipal councils run the libraries in the municipalities and let us stop playing this game of pretending there is a useful role for library boards if the government is going to take all the decision-making away from them."
That was Floyd Laughren in November 1984 saying, "A pox on this new bill," the bill that was brought forward in 1984. It has worked and I put it to you that this bill will work equally well, and more than that, it will establish a new partnership, a new relationship that will be very productive for everyone. I do hope we will at the end of the day have your support for it.
Mr Gravelle: In most ways I hope you're right. It's a funny thing, being in opposition, that a lot of the things you are concerned about you hope you're wrong about. I don't want to happen what I think will happen. I do feel an obligation, though, to respond to your comments in terms of municipal politicians and what you ascribe to me. You indicated that I was making reference -- and I think you've done it actually to both of us on this side a couple of times. There is no implicit or explicit sense that municipal politicians are waiting out there to get libraries. Municipal politicians have been remarkable supporters of libraries and we all know that and that is the case. The fact is they're being put in a situation where they simply will not have the ability to either increase or maintain that level of support and that will have a profound effect on how libraries operate in this province.
The truth is it is certainly possible to give more ability to municipalities in terms of that. But you can still give a per household grant. You can still recognize that's one of the things you need to do to maintain the system. You can still recognize there's a need to expand the definition of core services beyond what you've taken away and what you've done here. You can still do that. These are still things you could easily argue are that and still switch responsibilities.
I do not want it to be left with anyone saying -- and I'm sure you weren't accusing me of saying it but you were implying that I was implying something about municipal politicians. The fact is I recognize that the toughest job at the political level is at the municipal level. As much as I find my job a challenging job, I recognize that these are very tough times right now for municipal politicians and I recognize they have very tough decisions to make. I don't think it's fair that ultimately they will have to choose between whether they maintain their support for the library in their community or they have to find money for their social housing or they have to find more money for the roads. I don't think they need to be put in that position. The transfer puts them in a far more vulnerable position.
We will watch this and we will see how it shakes down. If I'm wrong, I will, reluctantly, admit I'm wrong to you, sir. I'm saying this on the record.
Mr Shea: We can do it privately.
Mr Gravelle: As I said, one hopes that this doesn't happen. These are the fears that I have, the fears that I expressed. We represented what we think we've heard from the library community. I certainly hope that the government will be watching closely what happens as well.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
Mr Silipo, page 47.
Mr Silipo: Do you not want to deal with the short title first, Chair?
The Chair: The short title I believe has been voted on.
Mr Silipo: I'm sorry, we're dealing with the long title.
The Chair: We're now on to the long title, which is page 47.
Mr Silipo: I move that the long title of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:
"An Act to amend the Public Libraries Act to end free access to information and to end citizen participation in the governance of public libraries."
The Chair: I'm going to rule that motion out of order for the same reasons as I did for the motion on page 45, your former amendment, and add to that that the amendments that have been passed I don't believe have provided the negative impact that would result from this amendment being made. Accordingly, I am ruling this amendment out of order.
If there are no further amendments, shall the long title carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The long title has carried.
Shall Bill 109, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Bill 109, as amended, is carried.
Shall Bill 109, as amended, be reported to the House? All those in favour? All those opposed? Bill 109, as amended, will be reported to the House.
That leaves one further matter to be discussed and that is the topic of the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board and the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library. Mr Shea has distributed a motion. If you could read the motion, Mr Shea.
Mr Shea: I move that the standing committee on general government, recognizing the important role that the Metropolitan Toronto Library Board has played within the local and provincial library systems, refer the two attached pages which represent two suggestions which we would request the transition team consider at such time as it prepares recommendations relating to library services.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour? It is carried.
Mr Shea: Unanimously. Thank you.
I would just add one other point before we leave. I would like to express my thanks to the legislative Clerk and to all who supported this committee as it did its tour of the province. I appreciated that very much and I particularly appreciated the opportunity to sit in hearings with my colleagues. As Mr Silipo has pointed out, Mr Martin is not here. While we don't agree philosophically on some of the issues, I found the debate, particularly with Mr Gravelle from time to time, to be civil at all times and thoughtful and very helpful. I wanted to express that on the record. Whether that's tradition or not, I don't care.
The Chair: Nothing seems to be traditional any more.
If there's no further discussion, the Chair will adjourn this committee. We appear to have concluded this bill. We adjourn this committee to the call of the Chairman.
The committee adjourned at 1735.