Transcription du comité 1997-avril-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, Bill 109, Ms Mushinski / Loi de 1997 sur le contrôle local des bibliothèques publiques, projet de loi 109, M^me Mushinski

Statement by the minister and responses

Hon Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation

Mr Michael Gravelle

Mr Tony Martin

Ministry briefing

Ms Sheila Larmer, manager, libraries planning and operations unit, MCCR

Ms Paula Kashul, legal counsel, MCCR

Ontario Public Library Association

Mr Larry Moore

Ms Linda Linton

York Public Library

Ms Eileen Keith

Huron County Library

Mr Thomas Cunningham

Ms Beth Ross

Etobicoke Public Library

Ms Elizabeth Brown

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Ontario

Mr Sid Ryan

Mr Steven Burdick

Sudbury Public Library

Mr John Sturtridge

Mr Irvin Sherman

Ontario Public Libraries Strategic Directions Council

Ms Colleen Abbott

Mr C.K. Tan

Aurora Public Library

Ms Verna Ross

Ontario Library Trustees' Association

Ms Hilary Bates Neary

Association of Municipalities of Ontario

Mr Terry Mundell

Toronto Public Library

Mr Rick Goldsmith

Oakville Public Library

Mr Jack Shirley

Mr John Barton

East Gwillimbury Public Library

Ms Karen McLean

Mr Ron Chopowick

Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library

Dr Maureen Rudzik

Canadian Union of Public Employees:

Ontario Municipal Employees Coordinating Committee;

Library Workers Committee

Mr Steve Burdick

Ms Janet Walker

Ms Thea Adams

Ms Christina Duckworth-Pilkington

Friends of the South Dumfries Public Library

Mr Geoffrey Snow

Ms Monique Dull

Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario

Ms Maret Sädem-Thompson

Canadian Federation of Students, Ontario

Ms Vicky Smallman

Ms Jane Marsland

Mr Al Fiorino

Pickering Public Library

Ms Jill Foster

East York Public Library

Mr Bill Buckingham

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Chair / Président: Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)

Mr MikeColle (Oakwood L)

Mr HarryDanford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)

Mr JimFlaherty (Durham Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)

Mr ErnieHardeman (Oxford PC)

Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)

Mr BartMaves (Niagara Falls PC)

Mrs JuliaMunro (Durham-York PC)

Mrs LillianRoss (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

Mr MarioSergio (Yorkview L)

Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre / -Centre PC)

Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre / -Centre PC)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC)

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC)

Clerk Pro Tem /

Greffière par intérim: Ms Donna Bryce

Staff / Personnel: Ms Elaine Campbell, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0907 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 Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government public hearings on Bill 109. I apologize for the slight delay this morning. We had to make sure we had a quorum, and with some of the extraordinary things occurring in the Legislature, everyone's schedules are a little bit in flux right now. We'll start off this morning with 15 minutes from Marilyn Mushinski, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

Before we do that, Mr Gravelle has a motion he wants to put on the record.

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I think all the members have a copy of the motion before them. In light of the fact that we know there were a large number of people who wanted to make presentations before the committee, particularly in Toronto, I wanted to put this motion forward. The motion reads:

Whereas Bill 109 will have a negative impact on the public library system in Ontario; and

Whereas dozens of individuals and organizations have requested an opportunity to present their views and opinions on how Bill 109 will impact their libraries and communities; and

Whereas government-imposed time restrictions have resulted in many Toronto and greater Toronto area organizations and individuals being denied a request to appear before the committee;

Members of the standing committee therefore agree to hold an additional two days of public hearings on Bill 109 at Queen's Park.

I hope to receive unanimous agreement by all members on this motion.

The Chair: The motion is in order. Mr Gravelle, if you want to speak to it, you can do that now.

Mr Gravelle: Just very quickly. Certainly we've had an extreme level of interest all across the province in terms of Bill 109 by people who are very concerned about the impact this bill will have on the library system in Ontario. I think the clerk can confirm that there were about 50 or 60 groups in Toronto that wanted to present but couldn't do so.

The importance of this bill is obvious to all members. May I say that it would be nice if we could also have hearings in other communities such as Sault Ste Marie and Sudbury and many other places we're not able to go to. So we're glad to have public hearings, but it's clear that we need more time, particularly as we have a large number of people who have requested to appear in Toronto and are not able to do so because we have one day. I would hope all members of all parties would agree that more time is needed and will agree to another two days of public hearings here.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I would like to speak in support of Mr Gravelle's motion in that libraries are one of the fundamental pieces of any civilized community, any decent community, any community interested in the wholesome wellbeing of its citizens and the education of its citizens. The impact of this bill is going to be serious and something that I think all citizens are going to have some real and genuine concern about. I know over the weekend I was approached by two or three people who expressed some frustration in not being able to appear before the committee.

I will be supporting this motion that we somehow, some way, find another day in Toronto to hear at least some of the tremendous number of people who have indicated they would like to appear. I believe almost twice as many people put their name on the list as are actually being accommodated. In the interests of democracy, although democracy is taking a bit of a beating these days in this place, we should hear from as many people as we possibly can. So if there's a way for us to get another day in Toronto to hear from these folks, I certainly would be supportive of us trying to do that.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I appreciate Mr Gravelle's attempt to be helpful. I can't support his motion, and Mr Gravelle probably understands why. At the very beginning, when the subcommittee was meeting, the government did in fact suggest two days in Toronto. There was some concern by other members of the subcommittee that we ought to spend more time on the road, that we should be elsewhere in the province ensuring that we were hearing the views of Ontarians elsewhere. Reluctantly, the government agreed, but cautioned us at the time that it thought there might be some difficulties. But we did agree to that and the scheduling has all been arranged with that in mind.

Secondly, given the extraordinary events -- and I'm glad my dear friend from Sault Ste Marie, who is as exhausted as he is from the filibuster that's occurring in the House, has reminded us of democracy and will remind us that there is an extraordinary circumstance that's currently about in the Parliament right now. I think it's simply no longer possible to make any accommodations. We did in fact accommodate the clause-by-clause hearings to meet Mr Gravelle's hope that it would leave time to have some reflection between the hearings and then come back and do clause-by-clause. We have accommodated that. I think that's about the best the government now can do.

Mr Jim Flaherty (Durham Centre): I'll speak to this briefly. I find it passing strange and hypocritical to hear from the opposition members at a time when the human resources of the Legislative Assembly are stretched so thin because so many members have had to spend most of the past five days in the Legislative Assembly listening to street names being read because these opposition members are obliging the House to spend five days now listening to this nonsense, that they would have the nerve to come here and say, "Do as we say, not as we do, and extend time for members to spend on this." We don't have the time because of you and your parties and your positions. I won't support this for that reason.

Mr Gravelle: If Mr Flaherty and others want to get into a discussion of what's going on elsewhere, we can do that. Certainly we know that the Speaker has --

Mr Flaherty: Come down the hall.

Mr Gravelle: If that's what you want to do, sir, we can do that. I don't think that's what we're here for today. The fact is that this is an important piece of legislation and Mr Martin and I will be happy to engage you in debate on what we think is important about what's going on upstairs, but I don't think --

Laughter.

Mr Flaherty: Give me a break.

Mr Gravelle: You can laugh if you want, if that's the approach you want to take. The fact is there's no question this is an important piece of legislation, and Mr Shea is quite right that we did want to have two days. In essence, I would be very happy to ask for simply more time to travel as well. I don't think it's an irresponsible motion and I regret that the government members don't feel they can support it.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): Point of order, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Can I finish with the motion that's on the floor? I don't see any further discussion, so I'm going to put the question.

All those in favour of Mr Gravelle's motion? All those opposed? I declare the motion lost.

Mr Young on a point of order.

Mr Young: Mr Chair, the Speaker ruled quite clearly yesterday in the House that wearing political buttons or buttons with a political message is clearly a demonstration, and he forbade them in the House. I wonder if you would do the same for this committee.

The Chair: I think that's a fair ruling, and I'd appreciate if you'd remove the button, Mr Martin. Thank you very much.

Minister Mushinski, you have 15 minutes. I apologize for the delay. Go ahead.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTER AND RESPONSES

Hon Marilyn Mushinski (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation): Let me start off by saying good morning. Members of the committee, I am pleased this morning to present my support for the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997.

There is no doubt that our library system is one of Ontario's important cultural and economic assets. The changes proposed in the new library framework are designed to build on the strengths of that system and to contribute to the evolution of library service in Ontario.

Many of you are aware that changes in the library system have been a long time in coming. Last year my ministry began a review of the library system shortly before the work of the Who Does What panel. The goals of our review and the goals of the panel are very similar. Accordingly, many of the recommendations from the Who Does What panel were adopted in the government's proposals on the new library framework.

I also asked my parliamentary assistant to lead a caucus committee to review the delivery of library services. At about the same time, the Who Does What panel, chaired by David Crombie, began looking at a whole range of policies and programs affecting provincial-municipal relationships, including the responsibility of public libraries.

My ministry staff and I held consultations with library organizations and library users in 1996. Members of the library community shared their understandings of what is most important to their local libraries and to the provincial library system.

There was absolute agreement that libraries play a critical role in the future of Ontario. Libraries are key to the future of lifelong learning and access to global information. A well-educated, literate workforce is one of the province's greatest economic assets, and the importance of information and knowledge cannot be underestimated in this information age.

There was also general agreement by the library community that libraries must make the best use of limited resources. There are efficiencies, improvements and expansions of service that can be achieved by sharing facilities and resources. There are benefits to be had by linking not just public libraries, but also the information resources of school, college and university libraries, as well as corporate libraries and government libraries and archives.

The proposed changes stem from my ministry's review of libraries, from our consultations, and from the restructuring our government proposes for the provincial-municipal relationship. The reviews and consultations demonstrated the key issues to be governance, fees and the role the province can best play in the library system.

Our consultations revealed significant support for the continuation of library boards. We heard from library professionals and library users that library boards encourage voluntarism, assist in fund-raising, bring particular expertise to library management, and can act as a buffer on potentially sensitive issues such as intellectual freedom.

We are giving communities more say in how they want their library boards to operate. In Bill 109, library boards would be retained but there would be fewer restrictions on their composition and operation. I'd just like to remind you for a moment what the current legislation requires. It requires prescriptive requirements dictating who sits on library boards, how often boards should meet, how many board members there must be, and how board members should be involved or removed and so on.

Through our consultations we also repeatedly heard that access to information was important, as was the ability of libraries to have discretion over what services are provided free and those for which there may be a fee. Bill 109 provides for both interests.

0920

Free access to information is the cornerstone of our proud library tradition. The objective of this part of the new library framework is to balance the principle of providing universal access to libraries and information with the desire to give municipalities and local library boards greater flexibility to generate revenue.

The government proposal is to govern library fees with a new regulation under the Municipal Act. This would allow the continuation of free access to libraries, free use of the library's collections on library premises, free loans of books and other printed materials to residents and free loans of special format materials for residents with disabilities.

For all other services, library boards would be free to set a fee policy which suits their own needs. This does not mean that libraries would be required to charge for other services, but it does mean that they could charge for other services if they so choose.

We believe that local officials will make choices that are right for their communities. Our proposed framework gives municipalities the authority and the responsibility to establish and oversee their libraries, reflecting the needs of their communities. It is municipalities which create public libraries. Municipalities currently provide the major portion of library funding, on average about 85%. The government believes it is therefore appropriate for municipalities to assume maximum responsibility for, and control of, libraries. That's why they are called local libraries.

With the transfer of responsibility for library services to municipalities, the provincial funding role to libraries will be phased out. There is an opportunity for a more clearly defined provincial-municipal relationship. The government's role is to provide leadership and to facilitate and encourage partnerships. It is strengthening the interconnectivity of libraries, working on network standards and guidelines, as well as policy support, strategic funding and forging partnerships, that expresses the province's best role in our public library system.

As part of our new focus, our emphasis will be on library networks -- making networks more accessible and more useful to library users. We have worked closely with the private sector and the public library community to develop Network 2000, a province-wide network of interconnected libraries that share resources, telecommunications links and much more. We are concentrating our funding efforts to support networks that provide access to global information and encourage resource sharing.

Library users will be familiar with the advantages of Ontario's library network, because a part of it is dedicated to the interlibrary loan system. We almost take for granted the fact that any library patron may request and receive a book from the circulating collection of virtually any library, anywhere in the province.

In our new information age libraries have indeed become far more than the repositories of books they were a century ago. With new technologies a small library in an isolated community can link its users to global information systems in ways never before possible. In this way the libraries of the future will continue to play a key role in nourishing Ontario's well-educated and literate workforce -- indeed one of our greatest assets.

Learning, as you know, is a lifelong process. Increased and improved access to electronic information will not only give us a competitive edge in a knowledge-based economy; it will connect us to the world.

All these proposed changes, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act and the proposed regulation under the Municipal Act, together form the new library framework.

I am pleased to recommend this bill to the members of this committee this morning. Its adoption would provide a solid base upon which Ontario's public libraries can build their future. In closing, I will emphasize once more that the province has an absolute and continuing commitment to Ontario's public libraries. Libraries are the heart of a community. Not only do they give you an opportunity to learn more about the world, they give you a sense of belonging: a place where an isolated senior can meet a friend, where a child discovers the joys of reading and where a person with no other access to computer technology can learn to use a computer.

The nature of our relationship with libraries is changing, as it has done continually since the first Public Libraries Act of 1851. Our government's goal is to ensure that Ontario's public library system stays strong and continues to thrive in new and old ways. By supporting technology and encouraging private sector involvement, we are helping to create a system that works and can adjust to the constantly changing needs of the greater community.

The Chair: We have five minutes for each caucus to ask questions. We'll start with Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Minister. As you know, in the next three or four days we're going to be hearing a great number of presentations from a variety of people, and I suspect a fair number of them may have some differences or want to make some changes to the legislation. The first question I want to ask you in the short period of time is, will you be open to amendments?

The fact is that in previous public hearings on a variety of other bills I think there has been some justifiable concern that the public comes in and speaks and makes representation and amendments are routinely denied by the government. I'm hoping you will be more open than has happened in the past. So my first question is, would you be willing to accept amendments based on a consensus that is formed out there and the ones that are reasonable and make some changes that the people out there think are important?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I think it is important to appreciate that this is drafted legislation. That's the reason that we have a standing committee process: It is to receive input. Certainly we are open to suggestions and, based upon what those submissions will be, I most certainly will review those with a view to making the draft legislation better. Yes, I think you can take that as being a commitment. We are very fair and we are very reasonable and we will consider the suggestions that are received this week.

Mr Gravelle: You certainly talked about this legislation bringing about an improved library system in the province, and one aspect of this bill, if not specifically this bill, is the fact that obviously with the loss of provincial funding and giving the full responsibility to the municipalities, it's going to be putting a lot of pressure on municipalities in light of the other downloading realities that are happening as we speak.

Would you at least acknowledge that there may be some dangers in certain communities? You've stated in your remarks that you feel that municipalities will protect the system, but will you not at least acknowledge that because of the competing demands that will be facing municipalities of various sizes, there may be some difficulties, particularly in some of the smaller libraries, in maintaining the financial support for the libraries themselves?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I think what's important to remember is that the proposed legislation that's in front of you today is really built on the principle of flexibility and maximum choice for municipalities. The other aspect, of course, to bear in mind is the fact that the burden of education costs will be taken off the property tax base. We believe that with this legislation we'll provide municipalities, which are the major funders of their own public libraries, with the flexibility to generate revenues and to make the appropriate choices that meet the needs of their community.

I'm very confident, having come from that municipal world myself, that local decision-makers absolutely inherently understand the need to protect local library services for their citizens, but they will now have greater flexibility through which they can raise the kinds of revenues to sustain a strong public library system within their own communities.

0930

Mr Gravelle: But we've already seen some adjustments that have had to be made, certainly in anticipation of what I think everybody now acknowledges, that there's a $1-billion difference somewhere between what the province is taking and what it's asking municipalities to incur. Even the members of the committee who are sitting on the implementation team for the Who Does What are acknowledging that. So I guess the concern truly is that it's going to be difficult for municipalities to do it. Minister, are you prepared to think in terms of having a certain portion of the reinvestment funds that have been talked about as part of the Who Does What committed specifically to libraries?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Certainly that was the intent of Mr Eves's announcement with respect to the smaller, more remote communities that may be left with the loss of certain services as a result of the restructuring and the disentanglement. But I'm confident that with all of the tools that are contained within this legislation, in consultation with Mr Eves and certainly based upon our discussions with AMO, for example, there will not be any libraries within Ontario that will suffer as a result of this legislation.

Mr Gravelle: As you know, Minister, we don't agree on that, and that is why we really think there need to be some major changes. Certainly one of the areas that's a concern -- and I'm sorry we don't have more time but I appreciate having time with you -- is the whole question of library boards. Indeed I think you gave some recognition of the importance of library boards by retaining them in your legislation. The fear is that they are being set up in such a way that they really can just be shells of boards. I think we're probably going to hear a fair amount about that in the next couple of days.

One of the aspects of that is that obviously a municipality, if it has control, can certainly set it up so that they just have one member of council being the library board, or a person of staff. Are you prepared to recognize the value of citizen participation in a formal way, a majority citizen representation as we have now? You talk about the value of volunteers. On the other hand, there's really been a guarantee of that being taken out in terms of library boards. Would you be prepared to have the legislation changed so you're very specific in the wording about the involvement of citizen volunteers on library boards in a majority position?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Again let me remind you that I believe the recommendations contained within this draft legislation are really built on compromise. You may recall, for example, that Mr Crombie himself recommended total abolition of library boards, to be replaced by committees of council. We heard through our consultation process last year that library boards are absolutely critical to library service within municipalities and should be retained.

We believe that the recommendations contained within this draft legislation really do reflect the wishes of the community as a whole, including municipalities, AMO, Mr Crombie and indeed the library community. We believe you will find that the library board makeup with citizens at the end of the day will probably continue pretty much as they are today. Municipal councils for many years, decades, perhaps even more than a century, have actually appointed citizens to those library boards, and we believe that municipal councils recognize inherently the role of citizens on library boards and will continue that. But again it's important to stress maximum flexibility.

Mr Martin: I certainly hear and appreciate your last comments. It still doesn't leave me, and obviously the member from Thunder Bay, any great comfort in that if you believe in the importance of library boards, why would you put into this act the power of municipalities to actually dissolve library boards? There will no longer be a requirement, for example, that libraries have to cease operation for two years before dissolving a library board. Combined with the power to determine library boards, this gives municipalities the unilateral power to shut down libraries.

As a matter of fact, as we speak, there is a community out there, Ignace, that is at this point considering moving the books into the school and taking over a building that was bought and paid for by the government and the citizens of that community, a tremendous effort by way of fund-raising and volunteer energy to put in a place a first-class library facility. Now, under this new legislative framework, the mayor of that community is talking about actually taking that building over and making it the municipal office. How do we stop that kind of thing from becoming epidemic?

Hon Ms Mushinski: It's important for me to stress to you that this is a part of the Who Does What disentanglement exercise. It is determining the new funding relationship between the province and municipalities. We believe local councillors will have to defend the kinds of decisions they're going to make in the future. Certainly, councils will be funding completely the local library service. We recognize that councillors will have to recognize the value of what we believe, the continuing value of citizen participation, but we as a province should not be dictating to councils who they should be putting on their library boards, given that they are now going to be funding 100% of the operating costs of those libraries.

Mr Martin: You will, as you've indicated, having come from the municipal sector, understand that over the years there has always been a bit of healthy tension between library boards that usually consider themselves friends of libraries, who have a keen interest in libraries, who have a skill set that is particular to this realm of activity, in constant discussion with municipalities over just what those libraries will look like, what the resources will be, what opportunity will be provided to people re accessibility and everything.

In this bill, you have set up the framework whereby municipalities can in fact, if they go the distance, take over libraries. That stands in contrast to the report your government put out on the whole question of volunteerism. You're encouraging volunteerism. In your report you suggest that volunteerism is going to become one of the building blocks of the new commonsense Ontario. Yet in this instance you're setting up the very framework that will undo what has become a very active, vibrant and viable volunteer effort in communities to keep libraries alive, to do some of what you described in your opening presentation this bill will do for libraries in communities. How do you account for the differing approaches in this bill versus the report that came out on volunteerism?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I don't think, in terms of my belief system in voluntarism, that's it's any different for local councillors than it is for me to believe strongly in the contribution volunteers make to their community. In fact, I'm sensing there's a certain mistrust of local councillors with respect to the citizens, the volunteers they were elected to represent. I find that a little curious, given the last five days' activity, really defending the role of local councils.

I don't really understand why you don't give councillors credit for knowing what's good for their communities. I know what's good for the community I represent. We strongly believe the volunteer community needs to be strengthened and we're doing that in many ways. I would suggest to you that retaining boards and giving local councils maximum flexibility by which to run their boards will give them far greater opportunities to draw on the strengths of the volunteer community within their own municipalities.

0940

Mr Shea: Minister, can you explain to the committee -- this was something that was raised during second reading -- why the permission for user fees and so forth has been proposed by way of regulation and not through legislation?

Hon Ms Mushinski: Yes, that's actually a good question. You may recall, Mr Shea, that last year in Bill 26, under the Savings and Restructuring Act, there was a regulation contained within that particular legislation that allowed municipalities to charge fees. We specifically, or I specifically, asked the minister, Mr Leach, to give me an exemption from that legislation for us to conduct a consultation process with the library community. Because of that particular clause within Bill 26, there must be an amendment or an exemption to the new Municipal Act for the fee structure to be changed that requires free access to libraries and free book loans.

Mr Shea: You bring to this presentation today some considerable municipal experience, and I don't think we want to let that escape our attention. You may have reacted, as I did, just a little bit to the questioning by the Liberal and New Democrat members who seem to infer -- I don't think they mean this in any nasty way -- that the local councils are incompetent to make decisions that reflect the values of their local communities, that the appointments or the establishment and structuring of library boards and so forth can only be done by either provincial fiat or some other mechanism. Would you care to respond to that?

Hon Ms Mushinski: I have more confidence in the local level of government. Certainly you and I, Mr Shea, share similar backgrounds. We've been hearing very much from those same representatives of government that municipal government is the level of government that's closest to the people and has the greatest understanding of the needs of its people. I believe strongly in that principle. I believe that's inherent and contained within this draft legislation. I think there were certain prescriptive requirements that interfered with the ability of local municipalities to generate revenues, and that's the whole purpose of this new draft legislation. I am absolutely convinced municipalities will always draw on the strengths of citizen participation at the municipal level.

Mr Shea: I agree with that. Picking up on that point, it would strike me as though in the Who Does What exercise, David Crombie, if memory serves me right, recommended that library boards be taken over by municipal councils, essentially no boards, and that was not something you were comfortable with. Would you care to elaborate?

Hon Ms Mushinski: No, it wasn't. In my response to Mr Gravelle, I believe it was, I certainly did come forward to cabinet with a recommendation for boards to remain as boards rather than as committees of council, if only to recognize the very strong and traditional role of library boards in meeting the literacy needs of their communities.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Shea. I'm sorry, but we're coming to the end of the allotted time.

Minister, I want to thank you for coming forward and making your statement today and answering some questions. You're welcome to stay as long as you want, but I know you've come off a 12-hour shift last night in the Legislature, so thank you very much.

Hon Ms Mushinski: I actually came off a 16-hour shift.

The Chair: Mr Gravelle, we have some time for a statement.

Mr Gravelle: I am pleased to have the opportunity today to address the members of the committee on the government's proposed Local Control of Public Libraries Act, Bill 109, on behalf of the Ontario Liberal caucus.

First of all, I want to be very clear on the implications of this legislation from the Minister of Culture on our public library system, because the people of Ontario deserve to know that their government is, by this measure, threatening the existence of a 115-year public library tradition here in Ontario.

I am certain this week's public hearings will be highlighted by presenter after presenter offering starkly contrary views to those we've heard from the Minister of Culture herself today. I consider it a deep disappointment, as do the people who work at, volunteer for and use libraries, that this minister refuses to recognize the unmistakable dangers contained in this legislation.

Furthermore, it should be noted that this minister is truly stretching credibility when she says this bill will mean better and improved library services in Ontario. Certainly, had the minister paid attention to the hundreds of submissions put forward by libraries and library users across the province, she would know otherwise by now.

I also feel the necessity to express my disappointment that we, as legislators, continue to see this government bring forward legislation such as Bill 109 that amounts to no more than bad public policy.

I have always strongly believed that the role of government is to work with the broader interests in mind, to devise policy solutions and progressive legislation that works to improve or strengthen existing infrastructures or systems.

To that end, I firmly believe Bill 109 is bad public policy that will create a patchwork of underfunded libraries across Ontario. Without considerable amendments that I hope will be accepted by the minister, Bill 109 will legislatively bring about an erosion of library services in every city, town and village in Ontario, while also destroying the resource-sharing and resource-building network that has nurtured the development of our world-class library system for over 100 years.

I want to speak directly to some of our party's overall concerns with Bill 109.

We, along with the people of Ontario, understand that the purpose and intent of this legislation falls within the parameters of this government's Who Does What exercise, an exercise that has resulted in the dumping of over $6 billion of new financial responsibilities on to municipalities.

I know that municipalities have traditionally paid the greater costs of maintaining public library services, for total spending of approximately $300 million annually. However, I truly fear that the complete elimination of provincial funding, which will amount to approximately $30 million this year, coupled with the billions of dollars of new municipal financial responsibilities, will leave our municipalities with little choice but to downgrade current community library services. So it's not a question of not trusting the councillors to do the right thing; it's putting them in a position where they may not be able to.

I know that representatives from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario will speak on the bill today. Let me be clear that I do believe that well-meaning and caring municipalities in this province will do what they can to maintain excellent community public library services. But I absolutely believe this government's dumping plans will undermine their efforts to maintain current service standards.

In small town Ontario, I believe the prognosis is even gloomier. With fewer resources and even more reliance on provincial library transfer payments -- and indeed they do, as you know, Minister -- smaller municipalities may be forced into a situation where library doors actually close. Our member for Sault Ste Marie mentioned the situation in Ignace.

In other words, forget about Who Does What. Bill 109 is the legislative equivalent of an escape chute for provincial responsibility for the upkeep and co-ordination of Ontario's 400-plus public libraries.

With less municipal resources for libraries due to new and competing fiscal demands, plus the elimination of per household library grants from the province, Bill 109 sets the stage for a number of things: the stage for the closing of neighbourhood library branches; the elimination of community library programming like programs for children, as has already been the case in Owen Sound; the jettisoning of key, well-trained library staff that has taken place in places like Peterborough; less resource material buying power, which has already been experienced by the Metro Toronto Reference Library; sharply reduced hours, like in Atikokan in my part of the province, which has had to already close its doors for 11 weeks out of the year, so talk about accessibility not being there, and certainly the utter collapse of the interlibrary loan program, which traditionally has benefited library users in rural and northern communities.

0950

What is most distressing, I say to the members of this committee, is that these funding uncertainties, directly resulting from this government's poorly planned and poorly conceived downloading plans, come at a time when demand and need for information has never been more pressing.

Libraries have served to fulfil, with honour and distinction, an important public and civic need. While also linking people to the information they need, libraries are community centres, sanctuaries, safe havens and windows to the world. They spark joy and imagination in the lives of children as they begin their journey on the road to lifelong learning. They provide comfort to people in our community, support the efforts of the unemployed. They offer escape and opportunity for those seeking enlightenment through learning.

It is most important to note that libraries are also the first and only information highway stops for many people in this province. Indeed, changes in economic forces have placed new emphasis on the role libraries need to play as we move towards the next century, which is why the timing of this legislation and the faulty framework it lays out are so damaging to the health of our library system.

Certainly consider the new application of user fees permitted through Bill 109. While theoretically maintaining free access to libraries and their printed materials, Bill 109 empowers municipalities to set new user fees for "non-printed" materials such as CD-ROM technologies and Internet access. These fees, which could and will be applied differently in communities across the province, will destroy our great, single and united library network and create a patchwork of public libraries with unequal access opportunities. I don't think any of us want that.

While larger communities may see some value in their applications, their economic contributions in smaller communities would be virtually nil. Furthermore, study after study has proven that library user fees can never generate, on average, any more than 6% of a library's total operating budget, which in no way makes up for the loss of provincial transfer payments.

I think it's ironic that two weeks from today marks the start of Freedom to Information Week, a week dedicated to the preservation of equal access to information opportunities for all Canadians. Bill 109 destroys this province-wide standard of equal access for all, thereby creating a system where some pay and some don't, where those who can't afford to pay do without. Is this the kind of Ontario that members of this committee want to see go forward?

On Bill 109, public library trustees have spoken out loud and clear on the threat to Ontario's library boards under this legislation. Where every jurisdiction in Canada outside of the province of Quebec and the city of Winnipeg operates under a successful volunteer library board model, this government has chosen to remove provincial standards that dictate the size, composition and functions of Ontario's dedicated public library boards. I think this point demands close inspection and I think we're going to be hearing a lot about it in the next couple of days.

While the government did recognize the contributions of public library boards during Bill 26, Bill 109 leaves it up to local municipalities to decide their fate and function. While municipal councils have always been fully accountable for library budgets, Bill 109 enables them to skirt traditional citizen participation -- they'll be forced to do this -- by creating library board shells comprised solely of municipal councillors, and it is a concern that we have that they'll be put in that position.

While issues relating to censorship have been kept out of our public library system, Bill 109 would allow for the intrusion of special interests and some political tampering, if you may, in the managing of library resources, which I just think would be a very sad and wrong direction for us to go.

While local library boards have contributed to the growth of a unified library system in this province, Bill 109 sets up a fractured patchwork system. Let me say today that the Ontario Liberal caucus will accept nothing less than full public participation on library boards.

We also believe that stable provincial funding to our libraries must be protected to ensure that residents of this province, regardless of whether they live in Toronto, Kingston, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Geraldton, Marathon, Dorion, Ignace, smaller communities, must continue to have access to public libraries.

The fact is that successive governments of all stripes have rightly protected and nurtured the development of our provincial library network. Let me be clear: It is very much my feeling that Bill 109 fundamentally threatens to destroy that world-class network.

I'll finish up my remarks this morning by noting that the motto of my hometown library in Thunder Bay is "Connecting people to information." On behalf of the people in my riding and in my community and on behalf of libraries and library users from across the province, I urge the members of this committee to listen well to the presentations that come before them today -- I ask the minister to do the same -- and I hope that they will be open to listening and making some changes to amendments which will indeed at least change some of the legislation that we feel is going to be extremely damaging to the library system in Ontario.

Mr Martin: This bill is fundamentally and in its essence about a couple of things, overall, that are consistent with the approach of this government and the intention of this government and what this government at the end of the day hopes to do in this province. It's about the downloading of costs of library services to municipalities, and I think the minister this morning was very clear that that in fact is what it's about.

It's also about when decisions have to be made ultimately a year or two down the road when municipalities have to make choices, some very difficult and, I would suggest, ugly choices, about what to provide its citizens and what it can no longer afford to provide its citizens. When libraries find themselves lower and lower on the priority rung for cash-strapped municipalities, we will find that libraries no longer hold that position that we've all put them in over a long number of years.

Decisions will be made and this government by way of this bill will have freed themselves of blame and responsibility. Municipalities will take the hit and that's unfortunate, because I think that people elect governments to make good decisions to work with them to develop good public policy, and they expect at the end of the day that they will have the intestinal fortitude to take responsibility for those decisions.

To be shifting as you are in such a quick and vicious way the cost, plus then the responsibility for the very difficult decisions that will be made, to the municipalities is in keeping, however, with the approach and the irresponsibility of this government in everything that it has been involved in.

To suggest for a second that this is about, or that this is the positive initiative that the title of this bill claims, is consistent as well with every other bill that has passed through this place over the last year and a half. It's a Trojan horse and people need to be aware of that and people, mark my words, in a year and a half to two years or three years down the road, will be presented with the stark reality of just exactly what that means.

Let me become a wee bit more specific in terms of what this bill is about and how in fact that is where we will end up. Bill 109 lets municipalities determine the size and makeup of library boards. In the extreme, this means municipalities can decide the library board will consist of one person, and appoint a municipal employee to be the library board. That's within their jurisdiction after this bill is passed.

While Minister Mushinski places great trust that municipalities will do the right thing and maintain high-quality library services, we are already seeing different motivations at work. I earlier referenced Ignace in northern Ontario where the reeve has offered to give the books in the library to the local school. Why so generous? Because the library is in a brand-new building that the community raised money to help build. Now the reeve is trying to push the library out so he can take over the new space for municipal offices, and Bill 109 will give the reeve of Ignace the power to do this, despite the minister's trust and comments this morning here that he won't.

1000

Bill 109 ends the guarantee of citizen participation in library boards, a principle of our library system that has been enshrined in legislation since 1882. Libraries are connected to their community by having a majority of citizen members on library boards. Why eliminate this requirement that has worked so well? Ending this requirement is, in my opinion, pure hypocrisy, given Harris's emphasis on voluntarism and the recent report on the volunteer sector.

Bill 109 ends universal free access to libraries' circulating collection and ignores the reality of our information age. By limiting free access to print materials only, and with pressures to cut costs, libraries will be forced to impose user fees on non-print materials. Fees are a barrier to service and experience shows that these types of fees don't generate significant revenue; they just discourage people from accessing useful information, people looking for work, for example, who want to access electronic information and the Internet.

This bill is a download of responsibility for libraries on to municipalities. Libraries will have to compete for funding as municipalities struggle to find money for the major health and social services responsibilities they have just been saddled with, services whose costs are expected to increase in the future. Especially in northern and remote communities, and this is particularly close to my heart, as it is, I'm sure, to Mr Gravelle's, including first nations, where libraries are finally developing into functional parts of the provincial library system, this will be a real setback. It means library services in these communities run the risk of being left further behind and eventually petering out altogether.

Bill 109 will lead to the fragmentation and weakening of libraries in Ontario and will lead to a patchwork system that will exist in some areas and will no longer exist in others, and that's really unfortunate.

The Chair: We now have scheduled a technical briefing by the ministry. We have half an hour scheduled. If we don't use that, then I won't be upset since we're already a few minutes behind. However, what I'd like to do is let the staff perhaps have an introductory statement or a couple of things they would like to talk about and then allow members to ask any type of questions they might want to ask. Before the staff begins, I'd appreciate it if you'd both take the opportunity to introduce yourselves for the benefit of Hansard.

MINISTRY BRIEFING

Ms Sheila Larmer: I'm Sheila Larmer. I'm the manager of libraries planning and operations with the ministry. Paula Kashul is our legal counsel. I'll do very quick highlights of the bill just so that everyone knows where we are and then we'd be happy to answer questions.

Bill 109 is an act, of course, to amend the Public Libraries Act. It does not affect all parts of the act but it does amend significant portions. I'm just going to go through very quickly on the things I think are most significant.

Section 2 establishes a new purpose statement for the act which speaks to the importance of public libraries in the province-wide library network.

Section 5 continues the provision that the public libraries are under the management and control of a board appointed by a municipal council.

Section 6 requires that municipal councils define aspects of the definition and description of a board which are legislated in the current legislation. These include such things as the size and composition of a board, qualifications of board members, procedures for filling vacancies and so on, which under the current legislation are set out in statute.

Subsection 8(4) of the legislation gives council the power to dissolve the board, rather than the minister.

Subsection 10(1) of the legislation largely continues the powers and duties of the board, but does give the board new powers to determine aspects of board operation which are currently regulated in the Public Libraries Act. This is clause 10(1)(e), giving the board powers to determine such things as the number of meetings, a quorum and so on. These are items which are currently legislated.

Subsection 10(2) makes explicit board powers to use outside services or personnel or to adopt policies of council. That's a new section, although it really makes explicit existing powers.

Sections 11, 12 and 13 continue to give boards powers that they need in order to operate, and there's very little change there.

Section 14 changes the restrictions on charging user fees. In the current legislation, the restrictions on charging user fees are set out in section 23 of the legislation and in the regulation. The change now is that a board may charge fees for public library services in accordance with the Municipal Act, and the restrictions are set out in regulation to the Municipal Act. The draft regulation establishes that there may be no charge for admission of the public to the libraries, use of the library's collections in the library, borrowing by residents of books and other print materials, or borrowing by residents with a disability of material specially formatted for that disability.

Section 15 continues the council's line-by-line control of the library budget.

Section 28 is repealed. I'm drawing your attention to that because that relates to inspection of records, which is now addressed by the municipal freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation.

Sections 30 and 38 are repealed. This eliminates the requirement that the minister fund public libraries.

Section 39 eliminates the regulatory power relating to library operation, library user fees and provincial funding of libraries, and gives new regulatory power relating to the province-wide library network.

Those are, I think, the high points, but I'll be very happy to take questions.

Mr Shea: I'm going back to your comments on section 15, which is the line-by-line control that's given to municipal councils. In the current legislation, is that power still with the local municipalities?

Ms Larmer: Yes. There is virtually no substantive change between the two sections.

Mr Shea: So under current legislation, if a municipal council decided it wanted to choke the life out of a library, to put it in crude terms, it could do it with the existing legislation through budgetary controls?

Ms Larmer: The municipality has control of the budget, so it can choose to fund or not fund.

Mr Shea: You gave an appropriate and professional response. I gave a political question to start with and I appreciate the response. Thank you very much.

The Chair: We'll just do a free-for-all here for a while.

Mr Gravelle: In terms of whether or not library boards can be put under different municipal departments, that now becomes possible, does it not? Under the new legislation, that would become possible. In other words, you could make the libraries part of the parks and rec department; they could be put under other municipal departments just based on the flexibility that the councils will now have. Is that not true?

Ms Larmer: The board remains the legal entity and the board remains the employer, so that regardless of what nominal reporting relations have been set up, the legal relationship is that the board is the employer, and the employees of the library are employees of the board.

Mr Gravelle: In terms of the user fees too, in terms of that which would now come under Municipal Act regulations, of course these Municipal Act regulations could change and may indeed change because we're looking at some massive changes going on. That in essence means that the responsibility of the Minister of Culture is almost removed, I think is probably the case, because libraries now are more beholden to the municipal affairs ministry almost than the Minister of Culture. Is that not true, based on the changes?

Ms Larmer: I can only state that this regulation was drafted in conjunction between the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation essentially in consultation with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, but this regulation was drafted by the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

1010

Mr Gravelle: But obviously now a lot of the decisions that are being made in terms of user fees now come under Municipal Act regulations.

Ms Paula Kashul: For any change to the regulation, my understanding is there would be a consultation with the ministry. You're correct that it is a regulation of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but the way that this regulation was drafted was in consultation with the Ministry of Culture.

Mr Gravelle: In terms of the size, composition and makeup of a board, the fact is that no matter how it's written, ultimately it is true that the regulations basically do allow, if not encourage, municipalities to absolutely make a decision on the size, composition and the amount of time they meet, which means they can quite literally determine that one person can be a library board. The bill makes that pretty clear. That is certainly one of the options that's available under this particular piece of legislation. Is that not the case? In other words, it could have one municipal councillor. Based on this, you could have a municipal official, a person who actually works for the municipality, being designated as the one member of a municipal library board.

Ms Larmer: That is our understanding.

Ms Kashul: That's correct, but I just want to point out that if that were the case, the person is still the board and has a responsibility to carry out the duties of the board as set out in the legislation.

Mr Gravelle: Right. But indeed the fact is that the municipalities still -- and again I'm not taking shots at anybody. It's just a concern that one sees a situation existing where a municipality for a variety of reasons may say, "We just want this one person on the board." They will be answering to someone, and they can determine how often the board meets; they can determine obviously the size of the board. Those are pretty significant differences between what one would consider a public library board as we look at it today. In other words, there certainly is the possibility built into the legislation that we could have remarkably different public library boards than we have now.

Ms Kashul: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: It's open to that.

Mr Martin: I want to follow up a bit on some of what both the previous questioners got into. Certainly the issue of whether now municipalities have the ability to work with boards to trim budgets and that kind of thing, I don't think there was ever in anybody's mind any doubt that this happens and goes on.

I think I referenced earlier in my question to the minister that healthy tension that has developed over the years between library boards and municipalities as they each dealt with differing priorities and that boards tended to be made up of people who are friendly to libraries, who understand the role of libraries, who do a lot of work educating themselves to make sure that libraries are all that they can be for their communities. In fact, in the relationship with municipalities there was a realistic, healthy and responsible tension that went on around the question of budgets.

I know in my own community up until now, because of the downloading of the cost of services such as libraries to municipalities, which has already started, never mind what is to come, never mind what this is setting us up for, they've already cut probably about $180,000 out of the budget, direct provincial grants, but they found ways to do that which still maintained some of the principles that underlie the development and the operation of libraries. At one point they talked about closing down a branch in Sault Ste Marie that served a whole section, the east end of my city, but the board, together with the administration of the library, found ways to keep that branch open.

I guess my concern is that the balance of power with this legislation is now shifting very dramatically to the municipality, which has other priorities and is not going to have the time that a library board has to turn over every stone and assess every possibility to try and find ways to make sure that accessibility becomes one of the primary characteristics.

Is my sense correct that what this piece of legislation does is in fact tip that balance of power so that municipalities now have more control over libraries and what they can do and how much they can spend?

Ms Larmer: Under the current legislation, the municipality does appoint all members of the board, so that power is current, and does have the line-by-line control of the budget. The key differences are, as you've pointed out, that the municipality now may determine the size of the board and may choose to have a majority of councillors instead of a majority of citizens. Whether that tips the balance I guess will depend on the community.

Mr Martin: Is it possible, given the tremendous pressure that municipalities already are under and will continue to be under and will be under even more dramatically as time unfolds in this province, that libraries could come under the direct control of a municipal officer?

Ms Larmer: I guess there are two points there. One is that, again, the board remains the legal entity and, regardless of whether it is all councillors or whatever, the board is still a legal entity and has, as Ms Kashul mentioned, certain responsibilities to carry out its duty as a board.

The other point is that under the current legislation it has been possible for a board to appoint a municipal official as the CEO of the library. That has happened, so that ability exists under current legislation.

Mr Martin: But is it more possible under what we're now moving into?

Ms Larmer: I'm not sure if it is more possible.

Mr Martin: Maybe more likely.

Ms Larmer: That's, I guess, speculation. I couldn't speak to that.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I think probably my question's been asked, but you did make the comment that the boards remain the legal entity and that the employees are still under the board. That really has not changed under this act or under the other act. The municipality still, I guess, has control over employees, albeit they're under the guidance, for lack of a better word, of the board. That's really no change from what's been happening. The old act said the municipality appointed the board. The board still oversaw what the employees did under their policies. They were still under the employ of the municipality. Is that right? There's no change in that end?

Ms Larmer: The relationship between the employees and the board remains as it was.

Mr Stewart: As it always has been. The same with the municipality as well: The employee is still an employee of the municipality. Is that right?

Ms Larmer: Sorry. I'm not following you.

Mr Stewart: The employee of the library is still an employee of the municipality.

Ms Larmer: An employee of the library is an employee of the library board.

Mr Stewart: So you're saying that in any type of community -- I would use my own, for example -- the employees of the library are not part of OMERS and a few of the other things, then. Is that what you're saying?

Ms Larmer: That I couldn't speak to. I can only speak to the legal entity, which is the board, the employer. I know that in terms of pay equity there have been some findings that the employees of the library have been considered tacit employees of the municipality but I can't really speak to that.

1020

Mr Stewart: Okay, just so I can get it too, when you're saying they're employees of the board, are you suggesting that the board itself is setting up the payments, their wages and benefits, and everything under this act is now going to be only from the board, so some of the small communities are going to have to set up a new system? Is that what you're saying?

Ms Larmer: No. I'm saying the relationship between the board and its employees does not change with this legislation.

Mr Stewart: That's what I'm trying to get you to say -- not "get you to say"; I don't mean it that way; never, not I. That's what I'm trying to clarify, that that really hasn't changed as far as the employee goes.

Ms Larmer: Yes.

Mr Shea: Just to clarify a couple of points raised and to bring some reassurance to Mr Gravelle, let me begin, since we're focusing on two issues at the same time -- funding and governance -- and he stirred my heart particularly as he spoke about Atikokan, I think. His figures, and I dispute them, would indicate that the best that fee generation might yield would be in the order of 6%, and I think he's being very modest. In fact, with Atikokan receiving something in the order of about a 6.6% grant, if we were even to accept his figures, then there would be a very even trade. This would be very revenue-neutral.

In terms of the budget -- let me be sure I'm very clear about this -- right now you have responded to my questions by affirming that under current legislation, municipal councils have full control of line-by-line budgets of libraries.

Ms Larmer: Yes.

Mr Shea: That will continue in the new legislation?

Ms Larmer: That is unchanged.

Mr Shea: Okay. In terms of appointment of members to the board, currently there are some requirements of who should be appointed in terms of citizens or non-citizens. That's in the current legislation.

Let's talk about the current legislation for a moment because you have considerable experience in the system. Who appoints the current citizen appointees?

Ms Larmer: Council appoints all members of the board.

Mr Shea: Council decides whom they'll choose?

Ms Larmer: The appointees are by council, yes.

Mr Shea: So council has pretty strong controls even now under the current legislation. It can decide who is appointed to the board or who is not and it can decide the line-by-line budgets of the library boards.

Ms Larmer: That's correct.

Mr Shea: Councils in essence right now, as we live under current legislation, really do have full control of their boards. They are accountable but they obviously are certain that under the current legislation, library boards manage day by day and are allowed to interact with the professional staff in a very appropriate fashion for the good of the community. In many ways, much of that will continue under the new legislation.

Ms Larmer: The appointments process remains the same, yes.

Mr Shea: Yes, that's all. In terms of the current funding, I'm puzzled because Mr Martin left me with the impression that there will be, under the new legislation, some struggle for library boards to have access in what I call the higher key of municipal budgetary priorities, that there will be a real struggle, that the library will have to get in there and compete for dollars against all the other municipal departments. That's the impression he has left me with, but I must say I have some sympathy with his position, because isn't that currently the situation? Don't library boards in fact have to go in and compete for their annual budgets against all the departments in the municipality?

Ms Larmer: That's my understanding.

Mr Gravelle: Just one other quick question. There are two very important sections in this to be noted, and you did note them, but sections 30 and 38 are what?

Ms Larmer: Section 30 required that the minister provide grants to libraries, and I think section 38 provided some remedies for withholding the grant.

Mr Gravelle: And they're both removed now in terms of provincial funding?

Ms Larmer: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I just want to make one comment here.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Okay.

Mr Gravelle: I just want to put on the record that there is a submission put in by Janine Grady, which was a written presentation to the committee. She was not able to make the list in terms of the presentations, so I want to be sure that her comments and presentation are read by all members and certainly are included in the process. It's an exploration of the impact of the proposed legislation on the viability of libraries in the smaller communities of Ontario. I've had a chance to read it and it's very valuable and makes some important points. I wanted to put that on the record.

The Vice-Chair: I'm advised that the clerk has made sure that copies are being distributed.

Mr Gravelle: From Tottenham, Ontario.

Mr Shea: Madam Chair, on a point of order: I know that perhaps some of us are a little more sensitive than others. I'm thinking perhaps even right now of Mr Martin and others of us who have been doing night shifts with great diligence. We may be feeling the warmth of the room. It has nothing to do with the political debate or anything else, but it may be a little stuffy and warm. Is there some way that we can cool the room down just a touch or get some fresh air rolling in here without blowing the Chair around? Would you like to grant that unanimous consent? Thank you. Let's at least get fresh in here so we can pay attention.

The Vice-Chair: I'm advised that the clerk has made some recommendation in that area. We also may be able to get the window open.

Mr Shea: I will authorize the clerk to stamp her feet and really make sure they listen.

ONTARIO PUBLIC LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): I'd like to call upon the Ontario Public Library Association. Welcome. For the purpose of Hansard, I would ask you to identify yourselves, please.

Mr Larry Moore: I'm Larry Moore, the executive director of the Ontario Library Association, which is a 3,700-member federation of associations working together to further college, university, school and public libraries across the province. It is our pleasure to present to you the president of the Ontario Public Library Association, one of those groups that has a particular concern with this bill. Linda Linton will do the presentation.

The Vice-Chair: You have 15 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Ms Linda Linton: I'm delighted to be able to speak to you today on behalf of the OPLA. This division represents librarians, authors, publishers, library planners and friends of libraries. This presentation will focus on five main areas of Bill 109: library governance, confidentiality, access to free library service, provincial grants and support of the provincial infrastructure. I will do a synopsis of the brief that you will receive.

We do not believe it is the intent of this act to do away with library boards or the volunteers who participate in these boards, nor do we feel it is the intention of this government to change the current management of library systems. However, Bill 109 opens the door for these things to happen and over time they will.

Mr Young: Excuse me, could I ask you, should we be following too or just listening?

Ms Linton: This is not exactly what you have in front of you.

Mr Young: So we can read this after?

Ms Linton: Yes.

This is not in the best interests of the government or the public.

It is our strong recommendation that this government support the retention of public library boards with a citizen majority and an arm's-length relationship with municipal councils. This is consistent with this government's recent approach to the Police Services Amendment Act, 1997, which establishes a model for majority citizen involvement. Furthermore, this would discourage municipalities from taking over the direct management of libraries.

By retaining an arm's-length relationship with council, we can ensure the protection of intellectual freedom and prevent constraint in the selection of library materials. This will provide a local base for provincial development of library networks and improve every voter's access to information regardless of where they live.

1030

On the issue of library governance, therefore, we would ask you to do the following: specify that boards consist of a minimum of three people, as in the Police Services Amendment Act, 1997; that employees of the municipality cannot serve on the board; that the majority of the members be local volunteer appointments; that board meetings be public; that the board meet at least six times per year; and that appointments to the board be advertised.

On the issue of confidentiality: Library staff and library boards have always protected individual library records, and we are dismayed to see that section 28 of the 1984 act, "inspection of records," is now missing from the new act. On the issue of confidentiality, we recommend that section 28 of the Public Libraries Act, 1984, be retained in Bill 109.

On the issue of free library access: Access to information is the cornerstone of a democratic society. By protecting the rights of everyone to access information regardless of its format, we ensure that all citizens, rich and poor, enjoy the same opportunities to compete in a global society. Restricting free access to only the print medium fails to recognize the technological changes that have taken place during the last few years. Much of our information, especially government information, is now only available in an electronic format. Another example is the Canadian Encyclopaedia. Electronic information is easy to use and affordable. However, the present wording in the new act allows only those who can afford to pay the ability to access this type of information.

Second, as the current bill reads, even simple reference questions could be subject to a fee-based structure. In other words, under the new wording of the act, access to these free books would be a chargeable service.

I will give you an example of a recent situation that we experienced in our library. We had a homeless couple come into the library during a cold February night. They had no money and no place to go and they were looking for emergency shelter. Of course, all of the agencies were closed in the evening, but by using our community information database, we were able to find the emergency phone numbers for two shelters in our area. We called the shelters and they spoke with the couple. Under the new act, that couple could not have asked for the free advice we were able to provide if our municipality had chosen to charge for basic reference service. They would have gone away empty-handed. When I spoke with one of the agencies the following day, they told us we could expect more of this type of question as funding continues to be reduced to more and more of our poor.

On the issue of access to free library service we recommend that services not be limited to the print medium but should include all media, including electronic formats, tapes, CDs, videos etc; and that basic reference questions be exempt from any fee structure.

On the issue of provincial grants: Over 55 of our small libraries in Ontario, many of them in the north, are totally funded by their provincial grant. With the loss of provincial funding, many if not all of these libraries will close. Medium-sized libraries will also be forced to reduce services and hours. It will become more difficult for all libraries to participate in sharing networks and there will be less incentive for large libraries to share with their smaller neighbours. On the issue of provincial grants we recommend that current direct grants to library boards be continued.

Support of the provincial infrastructure: Last Thursday I was privileged to participate in the official launch of Network 2000. This is the provincially funded project that will lay the basic foundation for the electronic network connecting libraries, schools, hospitals and municipalities across the province. At this launch the deputy minister, on behalf of the minister, spoke eloquently on the need for this increased and improved access to electronic information, to enable us to have a competitive edge in this knowledge-based economy.

The minister's speech stated that the government is placing great emphasis on library networks such as this to allow all Ontarians, regardless of where they live, public access to the rich resources of Ontario's public library system. The minister's speech also stated that in our new information age, libraries have indeed become far more than the repositories of books. In Canada, less that 7.5% of the population own personal computers with modems. The public library is not only a place to go to read books; it is a place where someone with no other access to computer technology can learn to use a computer, with some guidance and at no cost. The wording of the new act is inconsistent with this message. By allowing a fee for services other than the loan of print material, computer access will not be available to all Ontarians, and this will only serve to increase the division between rich and poor.

This free access to information also makes the public library the place that other community agencies turn to to provide information to their clients. They know it is the library's mandate to provide access to information and to provide it without charge. This is just one example of the many types of partnerships that libraries have developed within their own communities over the years. Without the necessary changes to the current act, this kind of sharing of resources may no longer be freely given and it will create a barrier to the free flow of information.

The new act encourages charges for the use of computers and non-print material. Libraries may begin to charge one another for information and interloans, and this will in turn create a patchwork of service and further inequalities between the citizens of Ontario.

To maintain the provincial infrastructure, we recommend that Bill 109 require a citizen majority on library boards; ensure universal free access to information regardless of format; ensure free access to basic reference service; maintain confidentiality of library records; continue to maintain grants to support the provincial infrastructure; and make possible the continued sharing of resources between libraries and other government organizations.

Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer any questions.

Mr Gravelle: Thanks, Ms Linton, Mr Moore. You've brought through some very useful amendments and I think you've summed it up very nicely. A key recommendation -- there are so many areas; we don't have time -- is a citizen majority on the board. As you stated, I think quite generously, the minister in terms of what she says seems intent on believing that this will not hurt the boards terribly, if they are not citizen-majority boards. Based on what she's saying, is there any reason why she shouldn't include something in the legislation to ensure citizen-majority boards, volunteer board members? Is there any reason you can see that they would not want to add that to the legislation?

Ms Linton: I would like to see her add that to the legislation, yes.

Mr Gravelle: She has tried to say that she doesn't believe this will make a difference. It's interesting, too, in terms of the whole question of user fees. That was a poignant and good example of how the system would work in that case, even for just reference material.

Most people haven't talked much about section 28. Tell us more about section 28, because it's probably one of the ones that's been least talked about. That's being repealed. What does the repeal of section 28 really mean?

Ms Linton: It's now missing from the new act.

Mr Gravelle: And tell us what the importance of it is.

Mr Moore: The confidentiality of borrowing records is what's in question here. Other freedom of information legislation in the province does not cover this in any manner that we feel comfortable about. This particular provision in the 1984 act seems to us to be a necessary part of a continuing future. We can't have our users' records able to be accessed in that way to see what they're reading. We have had requests over the years from police agencies and so on for such records, but the viability of that is really quite important.

Mr Gravelle: Why is it being taken out, in your opinion?

Mr Moore: We don't honestly know. We think it could be just a mistake, quite frankly, but it's a very major mistake.

1040

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming. There's some sense from listening to Mr Shea that not a whole lot has changed re this act and the governance of libraries, that what was there before is there now. If that is the case, why would you be raising some of the points that you have this morning re the governance of libraries? What is it that you're reading into this, which obviously Mr Shea isn't, that leads you to be so nervous in some of the areas you've pointed out?

Ms Linton: We know there are municipalities that wish to do away with library boards, and in fact this bill would allow them to create a board of one person. That person could be a municipal employee.

Mr Martin: Why wouldn't they have done that before?

Ms Linton: The previous act prevented them from doing that.

Mr Martin: Another point you made that I thought was rather good and one that we need to focus on is this question of the move from -- I'm not that well versed in library lingo -- books to electronic and the attraction because of the fact that you can charge for the new type of services and you can't for the print medium; the impact that will have particularly on smaller communities that won't be able to afford the new technology and will not be able to plug into the larger centres' technology because they're going to be guarding it. Could you expand on that a little further?

Ms Linton: Under the wording of the new act, the only thing that libraries are expected to provide for free is print material. Increasingly in our public libraries, print material is making up a smaller and smaller portion particularly of information-type material that we provide people. We still have vast collections, obviously, of fiction material, but in the area of reference material, encyclopaedias, Internet access, CD-ROM access and so on, online access, that kind of information could be charged for under the new act.

Mr Martin: Following up on the question of section 28, is there any sense that has anything to do with perhaps a subtle move towards censorship? We have a member of this committee who's already injected himself into the question of censorship of books in libraries.

Mr Young: No, that's not true.

Mr Martin: My cynical nature has overcome me here, but is this a crack in any way towards --

Ms Linton: We would like to think not, that merely it was just overlooked.

Mr Young: Let me correct the record about Mr Martin's comments. What I injected myself into was that parents in my community were objecting to a particular book as being age-inappropriate for grade 12 students in the Halton Board of Education. I did get involved in that issue, representing the parents in my community.

I want to ask you in a similar vein, because I represent a community that has been traumatized and made permanently fearful because a little girl from their community was kidnapped, raped, tortured and her body was defiled, and that was outlined in a ghoulish book, and I want to emphasize an inaccurate book, in their community. This is a book, by the way, that anybody can buy for five bucks at a corner store, so it's not necessary that it be in the library. The father came to the library board, he begged them in tears not to put that book on the shelves in his community, and they rejected him. I want to ask you, where is the accountability of the citizens' board?

Ms Linton: I think there is the expectation that the board is representing the interests of its community. If people were unhappy with that board's decision, they have the right to go to that board, they have the right to go to that municipality and object to the decisions it has made.

Mr Young: What accountability do they have when the board members all say, "We think we should have it"? Who do they go to? Where's their appeal?

Mr Moore: To begin with, the board remains accountable even under the new act. I'm not sure the situation changes. This is an issue we could debate in a number of ways, but the board --

Mr Young: The situation changes because a majority have to seek public office.

Mr Moore: That's one of the concerns: that intellectual freedom, as boards are expected to protect, will be weakened, no question. At the same time, the board is still expected to weigh the actual needs of the community and the response of the community and have a selection policy they can actually stand by.

In this particular instance, the board made a decision in favour of keeping the publication in the library because the larger community, they felt, did give them that particular message. It's very difficult.

Mr Young: I assure you the larger community didn't.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here today. I appreciate the comments you've made.

YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call upon Eileen Keith, the vice-chair of the City of York Public Library board. Good morning, Ms Keith, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Eileen Keith: I have been a member of the city of York library board for nine years, first as finance chair and now as vice-chair. Thank you for very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I want to address three main issues we have concerns about in this new bill.

First, I want to address the funding, the elimination of provincial operating grants to library boards, and how these cuts in grants and changes to the library legislation would reduce access to information. Third, I'd also like to comment on how Bill 109 will weaken library governance by surrendering it to municipal councils. My remarks will be directed not only to the proposed legislation, but also to statements made by the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in introducing Bill 109.

First, the provincial funding cuts: The provincial government has revealed its intention to phase out operating grants to library boards over an unspecified period of time. In 1995-96, provincial grants were $30 million. On November 29, 1995, the Minister of Finance announced that this amount would be cut 20%, to $24 million, in 1996-97, and 20% again, to $18 million, in 1997-98.

The decision to cut and now to end provincial operating grants is being driven by, we see, the Conservative government's need to deliver on its election promise to cut the tax rate by 30%. The removal of $30 million in direct subsidies to library boards will result in inevitable cutbacks to library services. The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation has stated that Bill 109 will both improve the delivery of services to the people of Ontario and lower the costs for these services. Bill 109 will lower the costs of library services because the provincial government is cutting its grants to libraries. How funding cuts will improve the delivery of services the minister does not explain.

The provincial operating grants flowed directly to library boards, thereby ensuring they were used only for library services. By giving municipalities full responsibility for funding libraries, the provincial government will force libraries to compete for funding with roads, transit, water treatment, welfare, public health, social housing, child care and long-term health care, whose costs are being downloaded on to municipalities.

The proposed removal of the education portion of the local tax bill is not going to make up the shortfall. Education costs are expected to remain stable, while many of these other costs, especially long-term health care, are expected to go up.

Because the provincial operating grant was conditional on libraries providing free access to materials, it promoted the principle of equity of access to information. Libraries will now have to choose between either cutting services or else maintaining services by imposing new user fees, thereby resulting in reduced access to information.

Our library board is already, because of this proposed bill, agonizing over how we're going to deliver service. Do we charge our constituents, who are not generally well off, or do we cut back on the range of services we can provide and provide freely? It's a real conundrum for us as library trustees to try and do the best we can with the limited money we have to use.

In terms of the reduced access to information, I think that's part and parcel of what I just said. Under the present Public Libraries Act, library users may borrow all prescribed circulating materials free of charge. Under the proposed legislation, only books and other print materials and materials for the disabled will be exempt from user fees. This change represents a major reduction in public access to information from the present situation. We feel it's based on a narrow and outdated view which regards print as a special format entitled to preferential treatment.

1050

It's been said before that information today is being created digitally and disseminated through electronic networks and digital formats, for example CD-ROM, and there's a lot of material out there that isn't in print. It goes directly to electronic form.

The number of knowledge workers in the economy is steadily increasing. Competing effectively in today's knowledge-based service economy requires unimpeded access to the information highway and libraries responding to the challenge by providing access to knowledge in digital form. Imposition of user fees on digital information will impair efforts to keep Ontario competitive in the global economy.

Granting local authorities the right to introduce and set user fees for borrowing non-print materials and other services will remove fair and equal access to library services and will promote inequity of access to information, which would see a patchwork of user fees and divide communities into information haves and have-nots. It will damage efforts to improve literacy and job skills needed to compete in the global economy and to encourage lifelong learning.

A further concern is the surrender of library governance. Bill 109 tries to make the withdrawal of direct financial support to public libraries more acceptable to municipalities by giving them the authority to determine the composition, qualifications, size and rules of operations for library boards. Of major concern to us is that it removes the requirement that citizens make up a majority of board members or that citizens even be appointed to library boards at all.

Bill 109 preserves only the name of library boards. It removes their independent authority and effectiveness and hands them over to municipal councils. The provincial government's decision to surrender control of library governance and administration to municipalities marks the end of a long, proud and successful tradition of volunteer citizen library boards in Ontario.

To meet the challenges arising from the ending of the provincial grant and the downloading of services on to municipalities, public libraries need to have effective advocacy from citizen representatives to secure adequate funding for library services. The board I'm on has members from all blocks of life: educators, business, psychology, accounting, retired people, young people. It's a broad spectrum of the population.

There was a question earlier about the municipality controlling the board because they appoint them. Believe me, once people get on the board they evolve a life of their own regardless of the fact that they're appointed by municipal council. I see our board certainly as being at arm's length from city hall and trying to do its best to serve the information needs of the municipality as a first priority. I think citizen representation is critical to good governance.

If you also have issues like censorship, the pressure is on the library to either add books, remove books, do something about the content of its materials. Having an arm's-length organization say, "No, we need to provide materials of all types to all users," makes it easier on a municipality. They could lay the blame on the library board. It isn't the municipal councillors.

The arm's length, I think, gives more room for negotiation and a better, hopefully more balanced look at censorship issues than I think would happen if the municipality had direct control over it. We have had censorship issues in our city of York. In the previous council we were told to remove a large number of videos because a video store owner didn't like us loaning out videos and we were able to say no to that. If we were just a committee of council, I'm not sure how we would have been able to do that. We need independents to be able to stand up to the pressures of various groups and try and present a reasoned response to that. Also, we're free. I think that needs to be stated. It's powerful expertise that is provided on a volunteer basis to the library system.

In an address to the Ontario Library Association 1997 Super Conference on February 7, 1997, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation described the present Public Libraries Act as "too prescriptive on matters such as board composition, board meetings and some matters such as board composition, board meetings and some matters which should be the responsibility of the library boards alone -- or the library board and the municipality -- to decide." What the minister describes as too prescriptive I would prefer to call safeguards. A citizen majority on library boards is the best safeguard for our library services.

In section 1 of Bill 109, "minister" is now defined as "the minister to whom the administration of this act is assigned." What purpose could this change have other than to facilitate the transfer of responsibility for library services from the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing?

Transferring responsibility for library services from the ministry responsible for the preservation of Ontario's cultural heritage to the ministry overseeing municipalities will lead to the end of independent arm's-length library boards and a surrender to local government lobbyists. Autonomous library boards are able to deal more effectively with calls for censorship and other challenges to intellectual freedom from special interest groups.

We feel that Bill 109 is regressive legislation which is being driven by the government's political agenda, not by the best interests of our libraries and communities. We feel that if passed into legislation Bill 109, as it presently stands, will erode library services, increase costs to library users and remove existing safeguards to our library system.

Mr Martin: We've only heard from two presenters so far and already a bit of a pattern is beginning to develop, in my mind, in terms of some of the real concerns. Certainly I raised this earlier in my comments. One is the issue of governance and control of libraries and decision-making. An anxiety I have and that the two presenters so far, including you, have presented is that this legislation will lend itself to more control by municipalities and elected officials at that level than this objective board that you described as having done such a terrific job.

Even more fundamentally, I think there's a shift here that, as you say, fits into the political agenda of this government. One of the agendas, of course, is the cutting of money to services such as libraries so that they can deliver on their tax break. But even more fundamental is a shift from a collective provision of a service to people that is universally accessible to everybody and a move to a more selfish, individualistic -- you know, I have a book and you have a book and we all have our own individual personal libraries, which takes away from the viability of a public library that's accessible to everybody and is able to afford more resources because we've all pooled the cost of that.

As you have referenced here, as we move more and more to an electronic medium, it will become even more important that there is universal access, because where some people now cannot afford to go out and buy books, it will be even more difficult if you have to have the kind of technology in your home that will be required in this. Could you maybe elaborate a bit further on the concern you've raised here around the question of universal accessibility?

Ms Keith: Our system is in the forefront. In fact, it got an award for loaning out software, and now we're loaning out CD-ROMs, again free of charge to our patrons so that they can access the information highway and go far beyond the print medium.

Our budget is going to be cut with the removal of the provincial portion of it, and with all the other pressures on our municipal council to fund, as I said, roads and welfare etc, I see great difficulties in doing that. The library system shares resources. You can borrow materials anywhere province-wide on interlibrary loan. As a library system and our Ontario Library Association we're doing the best we can to provide free, accessible information to patrons who request it. I'm really concerned about being able to do that with all the pressures on us.

Having citizen advocates who are accountable to the community and not to city hall per se I think gives us some clout and some freedom and some lobbying ability, if you will. We haven't even talked about fund-raising, which is another whole issue.

1100

The Chair: Before you get into that -- sorry to interrupt -- we're going to have to move along to the other two caucuses so they can ask questions.

Mr Flaherty: I thank you for your presentation. I'm a fan and loyal supporter of local libraries, particularly in my community of Whitby. Here in our legislative library, particularly in the past week when the librarians have been working 24 hours a day, we're much appreciative of their efforts.

The comment I was going to direct myself to was what David Crombie had to say about funding. I think the minister made it clear this morning that 85% -- in fact it's more than 85% -- of funding now is by the local municipalities and not by the province of Ontario.

The funding from the province this year will only be $24 million, with about $300 million coming from the local municipalities. This was noted by Mr Crombie in his correspondence to the minister where he said: "Municipalities now fund a major proportion of library costs amounting to some $300 million per year. Provincial operating grants were decreased to $24 million in 1996-97 and will be decreased again. Consequently, we question whether the current stringent legislative provisions are in step with the new realities."

On the funding model we have the reality in Ontario today, that the province has a very small role in funding. Second, on the governance side, Mr Crombie and his panel recommended that it be up to the local municipalities whether or not they even have library boards.

As you know, the government in this legislation, Bill 109, has maintained the tradition of a separate legal entity called a library board, appointed under the new section 5 of the legislation, that is at arm's length to the council, that is a separate legal entity, that is the body that contracts with employees. It is the body that has all the powers that are listed in section 10 of the new legislation.

My point with respect to funding and governance is that the funding follows the path of giving the municipal council the authority to create the board, and the board will continue its present role of operating the libraries, including dealing with the employees. So I don't follow the submission that's been made twice here now that this is not an arm's-length relationship, because legally it certainly is.

Ms Keith: But you have not defined the makeup of that board and that's a real concern to us in the library community, because the makeup of the board could be entirely municipal. And how can you have an arm's-length board when it's made up of municipal --

Mr Flaherty: Do you have a good relationship with the city of York council? Does your board have a good working relationship with that council?

Ms Keith: With our present council?

Mr Flaherty: Yes.

Ms Keith: Yes, we have a good working relationship.

Mr Flaherty: Is there some reason why we, as provincial legislators, should anticipate that library boards would not have good working relationships with well-meaning elected town councillors?

Ms Keith: Yes. We had a very difficult relationship with our previous council. Some of them are in jail right now for something unrelated to the library. But I'm pointing out that you're assuming a benign council.

Mr Flaherty: No, I'm not assuming a benign council. I'm assuming an elected council of well-intentioned politicians making decisions in the best interests of the community. That's what they're elected to do. I don't assume ill will by elected municipal politicians.

Ms Keith: A separate board with citizen representation, people who are devoted to library services and have some interest and knowledge in that area and are willing to volunteer their time: Why would you turn your back on that and give another job to really very busy municipal councillors?

Ms Flaherty: Thats not what the legislation says. The legislation does not say that the council cannot appoint the city people.

Mr Gravelle: I don't think it's a question of assuming ill will on behalf of councils. I think Ms Keith in her presentation has actually made it very clear that the concern is that with the competing demands on municipalities, it's going to be far more difficult for them to basically compete with the priorities, and I think you expressed it extremely well in your brief.

In the little, short time I have, one point you made was that the minister has been saying that this new act "will both improve the delivery of library services to the people of Ontario and lower the cost for this service." Is it not absurd to say that it will improve the delivery of the service when there is just absolutely no chance that can happen, based on this legislation, if it goes through the way it is right now?

Ms Keith: I can't see it improving with less money. It's getting more and more expensive to provide library materials with all these different formats that we've got. Books are relatively cheap compared to some of the other ones.

Mr Gravelle: I was also struck by a point you made which I think is probably pretty realistic. In terms of advocating as strongly as you are for citizen involvement and majority involvement on the library boards, what you said was, "To meet the challenges arising from the ending of the provincial grant and the downloading of services on to municipalities, public libraries need to have effective advocacy."

In a realistic sense we certainly agree that provincial grants should not be completely removed, but if that's going to be the reality -- and we know the downloading is going to be a reality -- clearly it's very important to have the real arm's length.

Mr Flaherty talks about the setup being an arm's-length thing. The technical people here earlier made it clear that the municipalities can set up a one-person board and they can obviously make it clear in terms of that relationship that there is going to be no particular funding. There will be a relation that obviously isn't set up in an arm's-length way. Clearly that's what we've got to fight to protect. You've made that very clear in your presentation and I appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation today.

Committee, I just went temporarily insane there and that ended up being about 20 minutes. We're going to have to strictly adhere to the 15. We'll divide the remaining time between each caucus equally, unless there's only two minutes left, and then I'm just going to let one caucus ask questions of that person because it would be impossible to divide up the two minutes. I hope you'll all just respect my judgement on those cases. Thank you very much.

HURON COUNTY LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Thomas Cunningham please come forward. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Thomas Cunningham: I'll introduce my members, who are here as a contingent. First I would say that we are speaking as a county library board, which is somewhat different, as I'm sure this standing committee realizes. So our brief may be somewhat different in how we see things and our role than maybe some of the previous ones were.

Thank you for inviting us to contribute to your discussion of the proposed legislation affecting public library service. With me today are Murray Keys, warden of the couny of Huron, and Beth Ross, the county librarian and CEO of the Huron County Library board.

Our objective is to bring to your attention the concerns of our rural and county library service. The Huron County Library board provides public library service to all residents of Huron county, about 59,000 people in 26 rural local municipalities. We do this from 11 full branch libraries and six deposit stations. Over 33,000 residents have library cards.

First we would like to commend you on certain aspects of the proposed legislation which we agree will help our county deliver more effective library service.

Flexibility of governance structure: Our county library board has always worked in close cooperation with the municipality of the county of Huron. County library boards have always had a majority of elected representatives, county councillors, on the library board, and we do not believe that we have been less effective because of this.

Huron county council will decide on the structure and composition of the new library board, and we are confident that council will appreciate the new flexibility of library board structure. We expect that council will continue to appoint members who will represent the interests of our community. On that point, we did have a discussion at our last board meeting and it was felt from not only the non-elected but the elected people sitting on the board that this is something we feel should and will continue.

The authority to determine branch locations: The Huron County Library board appreciates that this legislation repeals section 21, which required local agreement to close library branches. This now gives the county library board the flexibility to develop library service based on current community needs.

The Huron County Library board does have a few concerns about the proposed changes.

1110

Definitions: "County" should be included in the definition of "municipality." Otherwise, this causes confusion in the discussion of responsibilities. Later sections clarify that where there was a county library in existence before the new legislation, it continues after the implementation of the new legislation. However, we have heard from village and town officials who were concerned that they would have to deliver library services now.

Name: The proposed legislation changes the name for county libraries. For example, our current name is the Huron County Library board. As we understand it, the legislation would change it to the Huron County Public Library board or possibly the Huron Public Library board. It will require expenditures to change stationery and signs. We do not think this change is necessary.

User fees: The new legislation, in the amendment to the Municipal Act regulations, ensures free access to public libraries and free borrowing of print material. It allows library boards to charge for other services. Our concerns are that this is not a significant revenue source for small libraries, which provide only core services and cannot begin to replace the loss of provincial grants. It will require considerable administration to charge for transactions such as new responsibilities for enforcing ratings for video rentals or determining whether a person is disabled. Most of our libraries operate with only one staff person on duty at a time. Further, charging based on format of material is illogical. For example, some information is only available in non-print format. This may also discriminate against people with low literacy levels who need their information and public library service in non-print format.

Operating grant: Under the new legislation, municipalities are given full responsibility for library services. This includes funding. We understand that there will be no more operating grants as part of the restructuring of provincial-municipal responsibilities. The province contends that the assumption of educational responsibilities by the province will allow municipalities to direct more revenues to other services, including libraries. Our concerns are:

(1) Small and rural libraries have traditionally relied more heavily on provincial funding than larger urban libraries, and thus the impact will be greater upon us.

(2) County and northern libraries received a higher rate of funding in recognition of the challenges of serving a wide geographic area.

(3) Our municipality's early review of the transfer of social services, health, highways and other downloaded costs that have been changed to municipalities from the province may outweigh the lifting of the educational costs. We are concerned that there may not be enough local money left to fund our library service adequately.

(4) Consistent and excellent library service across Ontario cannot be achieved without a strong provincial presence in both the funding and development of library service.

(5) The province continues to commit to a strong library system by supporting the broader province-wide library networks. County networks should also be supported.

The last point is one we want to address. The province is going to continue to support library networks, particularly the work of the Southern Ontario Library Service. County libraries provide this service too. We deliver materials to our public libraries, connect them electronically, provide training programs and share resources.

In 1996, the Huron County Library borrowed 2,200 items from other public libraries but shared 29,000 items internally among our public libraries, received a van delivery four times a week from the Southern Ontario Library Service and ran our own delivery service to our 17 branches and service points.

If county libraries did not exist, the province would have a much higher cost to provide these services to our public libraries. County libraries are networks of public libraries. We connect our public libraries both electronically and physically, and help them share resources. We do this over a wide geographic area with long-distance telephone service, and in areas with low municipal assessment. The province formerly acknowledged this with a higher grant for county libraries. We request that you continue to do so in recognition of the networking services provided by county libraries.

In my case I am an elected person and I have been chair of this library board twice. I was once there as the warden, so I have been on this board many times.

I would say that in our particular case, and it may only be in our particular case -- I hope it isn't -- the county council to my knowledge has always supported the budget, and I don't recall having any item deleted once the board had made the recommendation to county council. That's during my period of 15-odd years on county council. So I would like to indicate to this committee that it's a very strong and a very good relationship with the county of Huron.

If there are any questions, I'm sure that Beth Ross or the warden would help me to answer them.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for your presentation. We've heard from the two previous presenters that they were very concerned that under the new legislation the councils will either appoint their own people or there could be special interest groups around what they want. I'm from a rural municipality where we advertised for people who had an interest in the library network to be part of that board and indeed the council appointed them to it, and why would you not appoint people who have an interest in that particular thing? Do you think, in your mind, through your council, that this would change in any way under the new act?

Mr Cunningham: I don't see it. I think we've had a good relationship, as I've said. It certainly is the feeling of the board, and that applies not only to the elected but the non-elected as well, that they felt quite comfortable with the present system. As I indicated, we had quite a good discussion within our board and that's why we felt that it was important we make a presentation here. We felt that there were some things we wanted to address, but there are other things within the bill that we wanted to say we are totally in support of.

Personally, I don't see the makeup changing very much. There's no movement that way.

Mr Stewart: The other comment being that the municipalities are now probably, if Who Does What goes through, to fund the library system. I guess my thought is, "Those who pay have the say." Certainly talking to municipalities in the area where I'm from, I believe they feel that too. They don't want to change it, but they also should have some control of spending and how they do it.

The other comment being the fact that certainly under the Who Does What, they feel the dollars that will be left to the municipality will hopefully offset the variance in the provincial funding.

Mr Gravelle: Good morning. I think it's great that you have that relationship you have in terms of the board and how it works, but regardless of that situation, it seems to me that obviously -- you are very clear about the fact that with the provincial operating grant being removed, it's going to have a substantial effect. If that provincial grant is removed, and obviously we think it shouldn't be, just quickly, what is the amount of money the Huron county board receives in terms of provincial transfers?

Ms Beth Ross: We anticipate receiving $138,000 this year.

Mr Gravelle: So if that is within a period of time completely eliminated, that's $138,000 that you've got to make up to maintain your services. Do you anticipate that you could have user fees that would make up that amount of money?

Ms Ross: No, not under the proposed legislation or the current legislation. Even if the library board were to choose to charge user fees for non-print material, as the proposed legislation indicates they might be able to, we do not anticipate being able to make that up in any way, shape or form.

Mr Gravelle: I know there are some members of this committee who believe you can make it up with the user fees, and it's just not realistic.

The reality then is that regardless of the relationship that you have with the board and the town councils, if you can't make the money up, you have to either ask the municipalities for more funding, which may be very difficult with the downloading that you've addressed as well -- the fact is that essentially it's quite possible then, with all the branches that you operate, that it might be difficult to maintain those services, I presume, unless you are able to at least match the funding that you receive now. Is that an accurate reflection of things?

Mr Cunningham: I think that could be a problem and that's quite likely why we are here; that is, we don't know how this exchange of responsibilities is going to shake down. But if it does shake down as our early analysis says it may, and that is a negative to us in Huron county, then yes, I see some very difficult decisions to be made and it may affect the library service at that time. That is why we are here.

Mr Gravelle: Let alone the fact that if you remove all transfers, that's more.

1120

Mr Martin: I appreciate your making the arguments that you did today around the question of funding for rural libraries. Certainly that affects us in the north, and particularly the smaller communities in the north where distance is such a problem. We don't have the technologies up there yet to do some of the things that they do in the larger centres, and I suppose in some way more aggressively than in the north in your instance.

My concern is your lack of concern re the whole question of governance. I recognize that up to this point in most jurisdictions there has been a healthy relationship between municipal government and library boards, a healthy tension that goes on. With the new pressures on municipalities that are going to come with having to fund libraries 100%, plus the downloading of social services and health services now that you have suggested will cost more -- like it won't be a wash; that will cost more than what has been taken off re the education piece -- do you not anticipate a new power struggle and perhaps a council, well-meaning though it may be in its effort to try to continue to provide services like health care and social services, may find that libraries become a little less of a priority and therefore some of the powers in this bill, which allows for municipalities to completely wipe out library boards if necessary in a conflict, that maybe it might come to that in some jurisdictions?

Mr Cunningham: In speaking with my fellow councillors, I don't see doing away as being of any merit at all within their line of thinking, but at the same time I think you may be somewhat right. But that would apply in hard times anyway. As the restraints upon our budgets come, I think that will apply whether we make these changes or not. It does from time to time and we've had to deal with that, and I guess we will deal with it.

We have in the past had a record that we give increases when necessary but we don't make cuts arbitrarily to the library any more than anything else. We are basically treated as a committee of council, to be honest with you, because of the way it has operated because of the majority of elected people. We have treated it the same as any other committee would be treated on county council. If there are cuts to be made, they are made.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming today and making your presentation to the committee. The committee appreciates it.

ETOBICOKE PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Elizabeth Brown please come forward? Good morning, Ms Brown. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Elizabeth Brown: Good morning. I'm accompanied today by Jennifer Milne, the CEO of the Etobicoke public libraries.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you regarding Bill 109. I have been a member of the Etobicoke Public Library board for nine years, three years as a citizen and six years as a councillor. I have been the chair for three years.

The Etobicoke Public Library board has already expressed to Minister Mushinski the reaction of the members of the board to the proposed bill. The opinion of the board is generally positive. Perhaps the greatest uncertainty for our board is how this legislation will tie into the eventual legislation resulting from the City of Toronto Act, Bill 103. We acknowledge, however, that the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, Bill 109, is to be province-wide legislation, while the City of Toronto Act affects only the seven governments of the citizens living within the boundaries of Metro Toronto.

We acknowledge that the content of this bill has not been pulled out of thin air. The Etobicoke Public Library board is aware of the extensive consultation that was undertaken by the ministry staff, and appreciate that our CEO, Ms Milne, participated in the discussions. Ms Milne and I appreciate the time and thoughtful approach of the minister and her staff throughout this exercise.

With the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, the library community can celebrate the removal of unnecessary restrictions on local decision-making. The bill permits each library system to design distinct programs and services to meet the unique needs of its community. I expect to see centres of excellence springing up throughout the province and libraries acting as resources within the library community as they share new expertise. In Etobicoke, we recognize that it is often very difficult to accommodate the wishes and agendas of a community as diverse as that of the Ontario library community.

We have concerns that Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act, will dilute the intent of Bill 109. We would suggest that it would be more appropriate to settle Bill 103, the City of Toronto Act which affects the 2.3 million people living within the boundaries of what is now known as Metro Toronto, prior to passage of Bill 109, which affects all residents of Ontario.

Throughout Ontario, our libraries play an indispensable role in educating people of all ages and abilities. The EPL goal was to be the primary source of information in the community. In this information age, EPL has shown there are many opportunities for specialization in the areas of providing high-tech support to information seekers. In our opinion, only with local control will libraries be able to respond quickly to meet the unique needs of information seekers, with service designed to serve the distinct needs of the library users.

The members of the board have concerns about the increased politicization of library service, for better or worse. The result of the City of Toronto Act may well be a library system for Toronto that is one of the largest in North America, with 95 libraries serving 2.5 million people. In our opinion, any board should have an appropriate balance between citizen input and political input to avoid the potential for struggling through a transition process without the representation of those formerly experienced in library advocacy and management.

In my opinion, the best libraries will result if citizens elect those candidates who are either proven library advocates or willing to commit to library advocacy. The Etobicoke board has always been able to attract enthusiastic advocacy from dedicated citizen volunteers as well as excellent representation from members of council. As a matter of fact, the person who was the chair prior to my term was John Hastings, who is now a member of this government, and he served on the library board for six years. So we do go on to other things. On EPL, balance of opinion is maintained because board chairs have traditionally been members of council, while the vice-chairs are citizen members. The new rules allow us to continue ensuring this balance.

1998 will be -- you'll have to forgive me for this -- a mega-year in the city of Toronto. We really fear that members of the new council will be so busy dealing with the myriad of other matters related directly to the transition that library service would not receive the attention it deserves. It is possible that each library branch could end up with its own lobby group that would effectively dominate and champion only its local branch. We believe that this would weaken the intent of the City of Toronto Act, Bill 103, which was to equalize service generally throughout the new city and manage it effectively.

With challenges in funding formulas, such as the impending elimination of the provincial per-household grant, we can foresee an increasing need for library board members with new managerial and entrepreneurial skills which may not be present today among the councillors or staff. These skills might include marketing, fund-raising and the development of partnerships.

Where do you find qualified citizen appointees? In Etobicoke we have a system of orienting, interviewing and assessing citizen applicants for all public bodies. This process has resulted in members on our board whose enthusiasm and abilities complement the strengths and experience of the political members.

1130

My personal fear pertains to the issue of censorship. Increased pressure on politicians may bring a return to the days of special interest groups placing a chokehold on the reading materials that are available to the community at large. However, I'd like to add that research shows there is no greater likelihood of censorship in Canada. Whether it is an elected or citizen member on a public library board, the real issue is whether or not you have proper policy and procedures in place to deal with the issue.

Just before I close, I would like to make a request. As one of the two non-unionized library systems in the city of Toronto, the Etobicoke Public Library Board wishes to ensure that the skills, service, wages and benefits of our staff be recognized and protected. Your assistance in this regard would be greatly appreciated.

Change always creates controversy. Previous governments failed to acknowledge the need for change. Your challenge now is to place the control of public libraries in the hands of the local authorities, while ensuring a quality library service that protects equity of access. The province of Ontario has grown so large and so diverse it is virtually impossible to impose one formula that will address the needs of every community. Local control for a local service? It's a great idea.

Thank you to Minister Mushinski for the leadership she has displayed throughout this process and congratulations to all who played a role in preparing this very progressive bill.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much for your presentation. I guess I'm a little bit troubled to see that you "expect to see centres of excellence springing up throughout the province" based on this particular piece of legislation, although you certainly recognize that the challenge is "to place the control of public libraries in the hands of local authorities, while ensuring a quality library service that protects equity of access."

Obviously one of the concerns that has been expressed frequently is that the elimination of the provincial transfers is going to have a direct effect on the funding availability for access and even on the implementation of user fees. I'm curious as to how you feel this legislation itself, let alone the actual elimination of provincial transfer payments and the fact that municipalities are going to be under a great deal of pressure particularly -- no, I shouldn't say particularly, but certainly very clearly in the Metro Toronto area. I don't know how you can see this particular legislation bringing about a springboard of excellence and in fact simply providing better service, which is what you're implying. If you could enlighten me, I'd be grateful.

Ms Brown: The library community is a very well-educated community. I'm speaking about the professionals involved in libraries themselves. Without legislation that impedes the opportunity, I believe you can develop services that can actually generate revenue by selling these services to the business community, to other levels of government who wish to know more about local communities or local services.

I know that on several committees I sit on, I rely heavily on the skills of the people who work for the library to produce information. These are services that could be sold if we were allowed to do it, and under this legislation we would be allowed to sell what we do best.

Mr Gravelle: Don't you feel that with the downloading that is taking place or the restructuring or whatever phrase one wants to use, these extra pressures are going to make it -- there's going to be a smaller community out there that's going to be able to contribute to this? You're viewing this as basically something you can simply, I guess, sell to the community. I presume that's what you're saying, that indeed services could be sold or you can have sponsorship.

Ms Brown: I'm not saying just to the local community though. I know that Etobicoke Public Libraries already collect royalties on some of our patented services that we've developed. These are patented throughout North America and we're actually collecting American dollar royalties right now.

Mr Martin: One of the points you make in your presentation this morning is well taken, and I think fits the context of other presentations; that is, that this bill needs to be seen in the context of the larger agenda that's unfolding. You mentioned Bill 103. I would also suggest that it needs to fit into the downloading initiative of this government, which will see municipalities picking up more and more costs, including the full cost of libraries.

However, the question I want to ask you is around your concern re the question of censorship. As you know, we have a member of this committee who has inserted himself into this debate and is quoted in the Globe and Mail of February 4 as wanting to get involved himself. What is your concern about censorship? You raised it this morning. Do we need to have some anxiety re this bill and censorship?

Ms Brown: No, I do not think there is a tremendous threat on the issue of censorship unless people don't carefully elect their political people, because some people are weak and subject to pressure from their communities to serve a special interest group rather than the entire community.

Mr Martin: Then why did you raise it this morning in the context of this bill?

Ms Brown: This is just something I've encountered personally and you have to be strong to withstand the pressure from the community, to not censor something. People come up with very persuasive arguments and they make a lot of noise, and you can see it. It's the squeaky wheel gets the grease and the library communities have to be very strong. Freedom of information and freedom of speech: These are all very basic tenets of Canadian libraries.

Mr Martin: Are you suggesting that maybe municipally elected officials would be better positioned re this question in governance of libraries or what we have now, which is the bigger board that is more representative of the wider community and has a special interest in making sure that the library's integrity is still in place at the end of the day? What are you saying?

Ms Brown: I think the community will ensure that the library's integrity remains in place because everywhere you have a vocal community, and as long as you encourage citizen input, you will have people coming out to counterbalance. Within the library community it's a very well-educated community, even among the users as well as the professionals.

I think the legislation does not address censorship at all and it probably wasn't even an issue that was considered.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Martin. I'm sorry, we've gone beyond your allotted time. We're going to have to move to Mr Young.

Mr Young: Do you carry Hustler or Penthouse magazines?

Ms Brown: No, we do not.

Mr Young: So when you choose not to, is that censorship?

Ms Brown: We have a formula that is based upon the desires of the community we're serving.

Mr Young: So it's choice; it's not censorship.

Ms Brown: We didn't bring in Madonna's book on sex either because we feared it would be (a) stolen, and (b) it wouldn't appeal to the general community.

Mr Young: So it's a matter of choice?

Ms Brown: It's a matter of choice and there is a general formula throughout the library community.

Mr Young: You have user fees now, I assume, for photocopying?

Ms Brown: Yes, we do.

Mr Young: Do you have a toy lending library?

Ms Brown: No, we don't.

Mr Young: Because in my neighbourhood they charge fees for lending toys.

Ms Brown: I believe that's covered by a social agency in our community.

Mr Young: Of course some people think of fines as kind of a user fee as well.

But what I want to ask you about is, with videotapes and audiotapes, movies, self-help books, books on hobbies, toys and Internet services, all the services they provide, when do education and literacy become entertainment and hobbies because the original purpose of libraries was to provide books to people in the interests of literacy and education?

Ms Brown: The difference between education and hobbies is just perception because people learn continually through their involvement in their day-to-day activities. People can learn just as much from reading a book on how to design a Web site as they can from fooling around on their computer. It's a different path to learning.

The Chair: Thank you both for coming forward and making a presentation to the committee today. We appreciate it.

1140

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, ONTARIO

The Chair: Would Sid Ryan please come forward. Good morning, Mr Ryan. Welcome to the committee. I'd appreciate it if you would introduce the folks who are with you.

Mr Sid Ryan: Jim Woodward is the legislative assistant for CUPE Ontario. Steven Burdick is the committee chair for the libraries within Ontario. Joanne Martin is the associate coordinator for libraries in Ontario. My name is Sid Ryan. I'm the president of CUPE Ontario.

CUPE represents almost 5,000 public library workers in Ontario, almost all of the unionized workforce in Ontario libraries. Our members are very active in CUPE Ontario and in their CUPE locals.

CUPE library workers consider their work both a vocation and an avocation. They have firsthand knowledge of how important the public library is to the community it serves. They know what improvements must be made to ensure public libraries are able to meet the emerging needs of our diverse communities and keep up with developments in technology.

CUPE library workers understand that Bill 109 will destroy the public libraries over the long term. This is why they want to present to this committee to urge them to recommend that Bill 109 does not pass into law.

With more than 1,100 service points throughout Ontario, public libraries provide access to more than 28 million books for research and recreation. There were 172 million visits made to Ontario public libraries in 1995, an average of almost seven visits per person. Libraries have one of the highest levels of attendance of any cultural institution.

Library workers monitor who uses library services and which services are used so they can better serve the community. People who use the new Tecumseth Public Library rank it top of all cultural and recreational services. Ignace, a community in the north, serves a population of 1,600 and circulated 14,000 materials last year.

Most libraries report a steady increase in usage. The Ottawa Public Library had an increase of 10% in circulation last year to almost four million items lent. Smaller communities report steady increases in circulation. While usage increases, grants have been cut steadily for the past few years from about $40 million down to $24 million.

The government plans another cut before downloading funding and responsibility for public libraries to the municipalities. The province plans to take out the final $24 million in grants to libraries. The cuts represent anywhere from 7% of a larger library's budget to 20% of a smaller library's budget. Smaller libraries will also lose the contracts made with surrounding communities that do not have a public library. These contracts are funded by provincial grants that will also be eliminated.

Ontario municipalities have already endured transfer cuts of $660 million, a 48% reduction, since 1995. The downloading of responsibilities will result in further municipal funding shortages of $1.6 billion.

Public libraries will also be in competition with public transit, road repair and snow removal for funding. Library workers fear that libraries will lose in the funding competition simply because libraries provide a benefit to the community that you cannot see or touch. People can see the result of cuts to road repair immediately. It takes longer to notice the impact of the loss of the library.

Libraries are the cultural and information centre for the community. With the arrival of the information age, quick access to information is key to full participation in society and the economy.

Most libraries already report staff cuts from the last rounds of cuts. For example, Metro reference has reported the elimination of 140 positions over the last five years. St Thomas library has had its staff reduced from 42 to 21 since 1992. Staff cuts mean cuts to hours, services and programs. It means the loss of valuable, trained, experienced staff. It becomes more and more difficult to keep up with new developments and to maintain even basic services like putting the books on the shelf in a timely manner.

Metro reference has lost 20% of its collections budget. Without adequate funding, library collections will soon become out of date. The Ottawa Public Library is already facing a $600,000 spending cut.

The southern and northern library services have faced severe cuts by the province, which impair their ability to serve smaller libraries. Smaller libraries have introduced programs to adopt a book. These programs are no replacement for adequate funding.

The new Tecumseth Public Library was forced to close for four weeks last year resulting from the previous cuts. The main branch is open only four days a week and is no longer open on long weekends.

The Atikokan community may have to deal with an almost 30% cut by closing their library between three to four months of the year.

The final withdrawal of funding by the province, coupled with the competition for scarce municipal dollars, could spell the death knell for small public libraries and result in significant cuts for medium- and large-sized libraries.

Libraries are more than just book lenders. Programs provided by libraries include adult literacy programs, children's programs, and cultural and craft programs. Services in the library include access to the Internet, access to computers for activities such as résumé writing, and access to books and materials in other libraries through interlibrary loan. All these services and programs are now at risk of being cut.

Young families, seniors and persons with low income all make frequent use of the library. The public library is one of the few cultural programs that everyone can have equal access to. Branches and small libraries are now located in most communities. If these libraries are closed, people without transportation will no longer have access to library programs and services.

As libraries are forced to close for extended periods, the programs will also be unavailable. If the Atikokan library is forced to close for three to four months, its literacy program will lose its home and access to services for the same period. Ironically, the literacy program just received a grant for $10,000.

Libraries in small communities provide a centre for community information. People use the library to look for work, get ready for interviews and prepare résumés. The computers are used to maintain their skills while they look for work. All this is lost when the library has to close.

Many children's programs have already been cancelled in smaller libraries because they can no longer afford them. These programs provided an early introduction to the value of reading to young children. The programs provided inexpensive activities for families with low incomes.

Under the changes proposed in Bill 109, user fees will be allowed for the use and loan of all non-print material. This means all the sources of information, such as the Internet, video, compact disc and audio formats are open to charges unless it is specially formatted for persons with disabilities. The principle of universal access will be abandoned. Studies show that the introduction of user fees will mean fewer people will access the services.

Although there is a fee exemption for persons with disabilities, many people will slip through the cracks because defining a disability involves a judgement call. People have different learning strengths. Some learn better by reading; some by hearing; others need visual aids. It is important to maintaining a high level of literacy that material be available in all formats without charge.

Only those who can afford to pay will have access to information in digital formats. Digital formats are becoming more prevalent and will replace print formats in some areas. This means those who can't afford to pay will be more and more restricted in their access.

The elimination of the grants that support the contracts for library access means user fees will be introduced for all people living outside the community who want to use the library. Many families will not be able to pay these fees and will be cut off from library services.

The small amount user fees raise will be more than offset by the number of people cut off from information and culture.

Public libraries require a strong provincial role to maintain quality and standards. A strong library network can't be maintained without a strong program of developmental funding. Bill 109 eliminates the provincial role of funding and maintaining a strong provincial network for libraries.

Interlibrary loans are based on the idea that we are stronger if we share. Interlibrary loans are labour-intensive. Larger libraries are net lenders and therefore the program represents a cost to the boards. With the loss of provincial grants, there will be less incentive for larger libraries to share as they face funding cuts. The interlibrary loan technology will be irrelevant if larger libraries stop participating or start imposing user fees. Mississauga library already does not participate in interlibrary loans.

The interlibrary loan system is also at risk as small public libraries are forced to close. The whole network for interlibrary loans will disintegrate. Communities will become more isolated and less capable of gaining access to information and literature.

The remaining libraries will become more isolated. Libraries in other provinces may stop lending to libraries in Ontario if there's no reciprocation. The library system will be weakened.

At this point, I'd like to pass over to Steve Burdick who will finish the presentation.

Mr Steven Burdick: Governance: Municipalities will be able to control the size and composition of boards under Bill 109. The requirement for majority community representation will be gone. Many small libraries fear the town clerk or the mayor will be the library board and the community will have no say.

Volunteer boards brings governance closer to the people. They involve more members of the community. Board members develop an in-depth understanding of the issues facing libraries.

Library boards play a valuable role as well as they attract people who care about keeping the library vibrant and they work to meet the cultural needs of the community. They also provide a valuable buffer between municipal politicians and the community to address sensitive and contentious issues, such as censorship.

Independent boards commit many hours to fund-raising. People are more inclined to donate money when they know that their donations are dedicated to a special purpose. Many of these donations will be lost if municipalities govern and control the library budgets.

In the small northern community of Ignace, the community of 1,600 raised $120,000 for a new building designed to house their library. The community has now learned that the mayor wants to move the library to the school and use the library as a town council office. A petition has been signed by 650 people to save that library, but its fate is uncertain.

The Who Does What panel recommended merging public library services with school libraries. This simply will not work. There are significant differences in the population served, merged and co-located with schools. A school is an inappropriate access point for adults both in terms of ease of access for adults and safety for school children. Many schools as well are far too small to serve the general public. Despite these problems, many local governments will move to eliminate the public library and claim the school library can provide the service.

Cuts to library budgets mean more than job loss. The remaining library workers are hurt by the cuts. Demand for services grows at the same time staff decreases. As the staffing levels decrease, stress increases for those remaining. Stress due to understaffing has become a pressing health and safety concern for library workers.

1150

Injuries have increased dramatically for library workers. In recent years, Toronto Public Library workers have seen a huge increase in injuries and attribute the increase to staff cuts and increased workload. Now 38.2% of the staff report musculoskeletal injury, which is an overuse injury, such as repetitive strain.

Many library workers also see their income decrease due to cuts in hours.

Staff in many communities must fund-raise on their own time to make up shortfalls in the budget.

Fewer budget dollars are left for training, but technological developments demand significant training so we can serve the community.

There's also pressure to increase the use of volunteers or to use workfare workers as jobs are lost. But libraries cannot run by replacing trained, experienced library workers with volunteers. These are skilled jobs that our public cannot afford to lose.

In her January 15 announcement, the minister states that the province will support a province-wide library network through partnerships. That means privatization. The local library boards are given the mandate to privatize under Bill 109. Privatization will introduce greater costs to the system and result in loss of jobs for well-trained and experienced CUPE members.

Many services, such as finance, maintenance and a whole host going to be contracted out. Contracting out may lead to a ratcheting down of wages and a worsening of working conditions. Public jobs will be lost. The result: A decrease in skilled experienced workers and a loss of decently paid jobs. Last year alone, this province lost over 32,000 jobs. We cannot afford the job loss that will result if this downloading goes through.

Adopting policies and procedures of the local government will result in a loss of autonomy and services for the public library.

Private contractors will determine the level of service and how the service is provided. Costs will be outside the control of the board. CUPE's experience with contracting out shows that initially bids are low, but once the local government depends on the contracted-out service, costs rise.

In conclusion, even though libraries are one of the most utilized cultural institutions, they lack a high visibility in the community. People notice right away when there's a pothole in the road; it gets fixed. Unfortunately, it takes a little longer to see the effects of the loss of a library. Parents will lose valuable but inexpensive programs for their children. Community services will be gone. Literacy programs will suffer. By the time the impacts are felt, it will be too late; the library will be gone.

It will not cost much to strengthen and improve libraries in Ontario. It would take very little to destroy the system. If passed, Bill 109 has the capacity to dismantle our library system.

Here are our recommendations:

Bill 109 should not be passed.

Pre-1995 budget funding levels should be restored to libraries.

User fees should be prohibited.

Universal and equitable access should be restored.

Independence of boards should be maintained.

The boards should be more accountable and more representative of the community.

Worker representation on library boards should be provided.

There should be a meaningful consultation established with the public, local government, library board and worker representatives on how to improve libraries. If that consultation results in library amalgamations, establish a process that protects jobs and collective agreements, and protect the public delivery of all library services.

I might note in conclusion that our committee also put together a brief for you. There are many recommendations embedded in that brief as well, which are largely similar to these.

The Chair: Thank you very much, all of you, for making a presentation today. We've gone a little bit beyond the allotted time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward. I'll make sure that the other brief gets copied and circulated to all members. Thank you very much.

SUDBURY PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would John Sturtridge please come forward? Good morning, Mr Sturtridge, and welcome to the committee.

Mr John Sturtridge: My name is John Sturtridge. I'm the chair of the Sudbury Public Library board. To my left is Marian Ridge, the CEO of the Sudbury Public Library board. We've prepared some remarks in response to Bill 109.

I would like to point out that just within the last day or so, we've also received support for our presentation from a neighbouring municipality, the municipality of Walden, so we're speaking for some of the northern libraries that don't always get 20-degree or 24-degree weather in April. I still have four feet of snow up north.

The Sudbury Public Library board has reviewed the Local Control of Public Libraries Act and its companion, regulation 26/96, and we've reviewed these with both interest and concern. We understand and appreciate that the government has made some changes early on in the development of this bill and we hope this committee will continue to follow with recommendations that come from the libraries' long use and long experience. We hope these hearings will provide the government with recommendations which will strengthen the act and ensure that the intent of the legislation can be enacted across the province.

The Sudbury Public Library board appreciates this government's stated intention to strengthen and safeguard our library system, its recognition of the need to remove some of the prescriptive measures of the previous legislation in order to permit greater municipal decision-making, and its emphasis on developing the technological infrastructure for the future. These are all reasons, we think, to welcome this legislation.

Our board wants to take the opportunity, however, to recommend some changes or enhancements to the legislation that we believe will strengthen it. These fall primarily in three areas: changes in governance, in user fees, and in regard to the province-wide library network.

The Sudbury board supports the government in its desire to maintain operating library boards. We recognize that public library service is primarily a municipal responsibility and that the major load of the costs of this service are borne by the municipality. We support the municipality's right to make decisions affecting local service and we support and endorse its responsibility to appoint the library board.

Although the previous legislation may have been unnecessarily prescriptive in some areas, we do believe, however, that the legislation should still include a requirement for citizen-majority public library boards. We believe that citizen representation is essential in representing the interests and needs of the communities and we believe that citizen-majority boards would be consistent with this government's goals of putting this kind of service at the level of the community, at its nearest level.

Municipal councils have a large and increasing workload, and municipally appointed volunteer governing boards can save the council a lot of time and ensure at the same time local control of the service. With careful appointment by councils, volunteer citizen boards will enhance the effectiveness of councils by bringing special skills, abilities, interests, enthusiasm and commitment to the success of library services.

Volunteer citizen-majority boards bring government closer to the people, and the governance role of the boards is the most meaningful contribution available to many volunteers in the community. Public library boards may be appointed by municipal councils, but they are driven by a private citizen's need to contribute to public service.

We believe public library boards act in that way at arm's length between municipalities and can mediate between elected officials and special interest groups. Nowhere, we think, is the value of this demonstrated more than in challenges to intellectual freedom. Freedom of information is a cornerstone to the quality of the contribution of libraries to Ontario. Without information in the libraries and without the ability to access that information, all the citizens of Ontario will be poorer for it, and changes in legislation which have the potential for reducing access to such information makes that more likely.

1200

Citizen-majority governing boards also provide consistency and continuity in policies, services and collections, which go beyond the three-year terms of individual councils. Public libraries are a long-term investment in the quality of life of Ontario's communities and often board members are long-term serving members. They can provide that continuity and keep a long time, a generational horizon, for decisions instead of a three-year political horizon, which often causes difficulty.

We know already that the government has recognized the value of citizen-majority boards. They have done this in the delivery of police services, for example. The Sudbury Public Library board recommends that you extend this to public library boards as well.

With regard to user fees, the proposed regulation 26/96 substantially safeguards the free use of traditional paper-based library services. You can go into the library, pick up a book and take it home with you. However, the Sudbury Public Library board believes the regulation does not provide municipalities or their boards with sufficient flexibility to respond to local conditions. For many libraries it may result in the reduction of fundamental services in order to provide other services which may seem to be revenue generators. We have discovered that revenue is often not cost-effectively generated at a library level. To date, there is no evidence whatsoever that any fees raised would be sufficient to contribute meaningfully to the revenues required to run a good library service.

We hope that during the review of this legislation you will look again at some of the documentation from other libraries and other library-related organizations that has been collected and focus on the impact of charges such as membership fees. These charges are often counterproductive, do not raise expected levels of revenue, and we think in the long term will drive people away from what is one of the most cherished public services in Ontario.

Our library board is also concerned that the regulation does not adequately reflect the changing information needs and changing information formats that will come in the future.

By linking the ability to charge fees to particular formats and special services, a two-tier system is prescribed which cannot be responsive to cultural or information changes. Such a prescription, it seems, works against the stated intention of the bill, which is to reduce prescriptiveness.

The Sudbury Public Library board supports free access to and use of public libraries and all their resources, regardless of formats. However, we're not so naïve as not to recognize that municipal governments have to identify other revenue sources to support their services. In its current form, this regulation prevents public libraries from establishing what may be more cost-effective fee systems.

Finally, with regard to the province-wide network, we are pleased to read the minister's statement, "Provincial support for libraries will be directed to province-wide networking between libraries and other information sources." We aren't pleased, of course, to lose provincial financial support, but we're hoping that it does go into at least the networking end. The province-wide network has been fundamental to local library service delivery and to the province's continued support for developing the technological infrastructure for the network of the future.

We are concerned, however, at the contradiction between developing a network for greater access and the possibility of fees which restrict access to electronic information. Access to information should not be restricted to paper-based formats. We believe that, to be consistent with the principle behind free lending of books, the public must have free access to resources obtained through electronic methods. It is the information that counts, not whether it pops up on a screen or whether it shows up between the bound covers of a book.

We are also concerned that the provincial role has been confined to network development. A network is only as strong as the individual nodes within that network. The technology only has meaning if it can connect resources and people. You can build the fastest, best-designed, best-funded network in the world, but if that network is connected to nodes that don't have information worth looking for because of funding cutbacks, or if they're not there at all because they're being increasingly shut down as a result of fewer library services or fewer resources, then what's the use of having that network? What you will have developed is the so-called information superhighway, which is driving from one deserted town to another.

The withdrawal of all provincial funding for public libraries may result in weaker collections and services, and that will reduce the value of the network. It may discourage, rather than encourage, libraries from supporting and participating within a provincial network strategy. The loss of a per household grant may weaken rather than strengthen the cooperative structure which the government envisions.

Public library legislation is not changed every day and I don't imagine it's changed without a great deal of time and effort. This legislation has been around for a long time and, again, we support some of the changes that are proposed in it. But this is a serious matter for all of Sudbury's public library users and indeed for all library users across Ontario.

We applaud the strengths of the legislation but we urge you to consider our concerns and recommendations and those of many other public libraries and library organizations. We hope we can help in making this bill even stronger. Thank you.

Mr Martin: I certainly appreciate you coming down from the north to make a presentation on behalf of those of us who call the north our home. You make some I think really good points in your presentation. I suppose your support for some parts of this bill would probably be even stronger if it weren't being done in the context of the further downloading that's going on in municipalities which will cause greater strain and pressure for funds.

I wanted to ask you to elaborate maybe a little further on your statement that this regulation prevents public libraries from establishing cost-effective fee systems. What did you mean by that?

Mr Sturtridge: If it's required to generate revenue in the library service, the legislation as it stands now restricts our library's ability to, say, choose a service which would generate a fair amount of revenue, but the legislation says you can't charge for it. There is a prescription in the legislation that says maybe you can't charge for this type of service or that.

We're saying that if we have to charge for something, it would be better for individual libraries to assess their community and determine which service would allow them to generate the most revenue and allow them to make that one the revenue generator and allow the rest of the services to be free. With some restrictions in place, that reduces our ability perhaps, on an individual level, to find a cost-effective revenue generator.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): I'd like to follow up on Mr Martin's question because I too was sort of puzzled by this. I wonder, given that the legislation clearly indicates areas of free access and print material and so forth, what kinds of revenue-generation restrictions are you thinking of, specifically?

Mr Sturtridge: Membership fees or charging for cards and things like that have often been mentioned as revenue generators. I believe we could not at the moment, for example, charge to get somebody a library card. That would remain. It may be that you have a specific library in the system that finds that they could generate a significant amount of revenue without having a deteriorating usage. Without the flexibility of choosing that, they would not be able to use that as a revenue generator.

We don't anticipate always charging for things. In fact, we would hope funding would continue to a level that we would not charge for any of our services, but it is a tight time, as has been noted by others.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you, and welcome. It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your support for the bill in whatever aspects there are is conditional on having some significant amendments to the bill. Is that an accurate representation? Because if it isn't, there are a lot of things here that you have great concerns about.

Mr Sturtridge: I certainly have concerns about it, and I think this is the time to make changes or modifications to the bill that will make it, overall, stronger. It's difficult, for example, to say this is really good on the one hand and this is bad on the other, then have the whole package, because then you know you're going to get something that isn't going to work.

We can live with, and have lived with for quite a while, the existing legislation. While it can be made better, I'm not sure that it can always be made better at the expense of damaging the library.

Mr Gravelle: You feel very strongly about citizen majority boards, for example, and they --

Mr Sturtridge: Yes, citizen majority boards are crucial. They are crucial simply because they are a buffer between short-term political goals and very active, very vocal special interest groups in the community. People who are on the boards are volunteers, they aren't paid, and they spend a lot of time trying to develop long-term policies for the libraries and defending those policies. They are crucial, and if that disappears I think you will see the end of a lot of good libraries.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.

1210

IRVIN SHERMAN

The Chair: Irvin Sherman, please. Welcome, Mr Sherman, to the committee.

Mr Irvin Sherman: Thank you, Mr Chairman and members of this committee. I am pleased to appear here today before this standing committee and generally speak in favour of Bill 109, which relates to local control of public libraries.

I have been a patron of the public library system in Ontario for more than 30 years. I spent 14 years as a library board member, and for three of those years I was chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto Library board.

Since I commenced my service as a library board member in 1978, municipalities have become more involved in the control over their own public libraries through the appointment process, through the funding process and through plain political persuasion. Of course these changes came about as the result of, in most instances, statutory change. The inevitable consequence of the proposed shift in funding of municipal services in this province is to give the municipality control over the total funding of its own library board. Local government can now be more responsive to local needs.

I would submit to you that there's been increased political involvement in library boards over the last number of years as a consequence of local politicians becoming more involved in the boards, in the institutions they fund -- you pay the fiddler, you call the tune -- and that's what the general trend, I would submit, has been over the last 10 years or so. It seems to me it would be patently logical that if you're going to pay for it, you'll have some control over it. You're responsible, as a local councillor, for the expenditures of this money either directly or indirectly.

Notwithstanding what I've said, there are two principles enshrined in this act. I don't know if they're perfect, you've heard similar comments earlier, and they'll address concerns that I now present to you.

The public library will remain a corporation; that is, a legal entity separate from its creator, the local municipality. The library board has a status of its own, and I would submit that this is good for psychological reasons. An independent board permits citizen involvement in the formation of policy for the library board and in determining community needs and setting community standards. From a practical and political perspective, it insulates some municipal politicians from the issue of censorship.

I support and encourage the local government to permit citizen involvement on public library boards. I know I have benefited from having been given the opportunity to serve. In return the library board can benefit, and indeed for decades has benefited, from the knowledge, dedication and experience of citizen library board members.

Since the establishment over 150 years ago of the Mechanics' Institute, the public has had free access to library materials. This free access is maintained under Bill 109 as it relates to printed material and specially formatted material for persons with disabilities.

There is a growing use and reliance in public libraries of material in non-print, computerized format. It would be illogical and wrong in principle for a patron to have access to the Toronto Star and to have to pay to read the Globe and Mail in computerized format, especially if the Globe is available only in the latter format. For the Star or Globe you could talk about two different journals. The library has one physically on hand that you can pick off the shelf and you can get access to it for nothing, and the other journal of equal quality, shall I say, equal importance, the citizen would have to pay to read it. It doesn't quite make sense if you want to have free access to information.

As I look up and see the megacity debate, I'm going to talk a bit about megacity. With the establishment of the megacity of Metro Toronto, seven library boards will be dissolved under Bill 103. Six of these libraries are created under the Public Libraries Act and the seventh library, the Metropolitan Toronto Library board, is created under part IX of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. Under Bill 109, every public library established under the Public Libraries Act will be continued. As the Metropolitan library is not created under the Public Libraries Act, it shall remain dissolved. I encourage you to see that this important oversight is corrected.

In the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act there's provision for the establishment of a special services library board. This provides services to the local Metro community and also services to the Ontario library community, and by operation of part IX of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, in subsections 40(1) and 40(3) of the Public Libraries Act, the minister may make special grants to the Metro library.

Let's assume that we've overcome the problem of the continuance of the Metro library board, and I believe representatives of that library board will be speaking to you on this issue this afternoon. The minister can't make grants to a nonentity, so I think this committee should assure that the provision for a special library services board be maintained, that the library board be the Metropolitan Toronto Library, and there should be legal provision, provision in law, for the ministry to make the appropriate contract for services. Under Bill 109 the local area pays for municipal services and it would be unfair, I think, for the citizens of the new city of Toronto to have to pay for the provincial library services that the ministry demands.

The seven public library boards in Metro Toronto spend $130 million each year on library service. This is a testament to the importance our local politicians have placed in providing library service in Metropolitan Toronto. Indeed, it's a wonderful reflection of the quality of life we enjoy.

Charles Wilson was Dwight Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense, and his defence policy in the time of the Cold War was to get the biggest bang for the buck. I state that with the megacity we can get a bigger bang for a lesser buck as same relates to public library service. We do not need seven public library boards, seven chief executive officers, seven acquisitions and cataloguing departments and seven computer systems, most of which cannot talk to each other.

Under Bills 103 and 109, one local government controlling one library board can effectively and sufficiently provide the excellent library services the residents of Metro Toronto now enjoy, and perhaps at a reduced cost.

If I could talk now about some other sections of the bill which were important to me: Under section 10 of the proposed act the library board is given the power to help curb vandalism and unruly behaviour which are often seen in our public libraries. This power has long been needed, and I'm pleased to see it's very specifically defined. Hopefully this will help curb the growing problem of damage to expensive library materials and to deal with unruly and rude people who often frequent the local libraries.

1220

Under subsection 13(3) of Bill 109 the library "board may, by resolution, establish...sick leave credits." I have nothing against sick leave credits. Indeed I believe the provision for sick leave credits on a municipal basis goes back to 1975 in the amendments to the Municipal Act. However, I say that the estimated cumulative sick leave liability may represent a very significant liability to our local governance. I recommend that such benefits become operable when a system for their funding on a sound, businesslike basis has been established. I suppose you can't disestablish vested rights, but I think that if you're going to continue sick leave credits, you just can't have it open-ended. I believe when John Kruger was -- I'm referring to memory now --

Mr Shea: CAO.

Mr Sherman: -- yes, CAO of Metro Toronto at the time of Paul Godfrey as chairman, Mr Kruger did a study of the estimated vested cumulative sick leave liability in Metropolitan Toronto. It was around 1981, 1982, 1983, around there I remember. At that time it would have cost Metro Toronto $150 million, an eighth of a billion dollars. That's one heck of a lot of money. It doesn't happen each year, but in these economic times it's happening more frequently. I'd like to see a curb put on sick leave benefits until the appropriate funding mechanisms have been put in place.

I also notice in the new bill, section 2 provides a statement of purpose which reaffirms the direction a library service is expected to be provided in this province. I would submit to you that this statement is not legally binding but it does constitute a precatory direction -- I took that from a case in immigration law -- for those who provide library service in Ontario to keep on providing the library service we have experienced in the past and which we demand in the future.

The policy statement in section 2, I don't know if politicians will like it. Look, when your citizens implore you, you're supposed to provide good quality. Here it is in section 2 and it's an effective arguing tool; I'll say that. I don't think it's legally binding, but it does state what we expect, what we have experienced in this province and what we should expect in the future.

I thank you for affording my 15 minutes.

Mr Shea: The free access to information is obviously one issue that is of some interest to you. When you talk about access to information -- let me ask you to focus on information -- in your mind, what is information? What should you have access to in a library?

Mr Sherman: Knowledge of many forms. You're writing a paper. You're a tradesman. Mechanics' Institute, for example, taught a young fellow, in those days, to learn a trade; you want to be entertained; you like reading fiction, anything that --

Mr Shea: Books, electronics?

Mr Sherman: That's right. Anything heretofore that was in print.

Mr Shea: Videos.

Mr Sherman: That could have a pedagogical effect -- videos are interesting -- because that gives rise to local control, how much you can afford. There's the issue of competition of the local Blockbuster Video store, but should a library compete with that? We get that issue in zoning problems too: Should you permit the establishment of a big plaza when --

Mr Shea: We're going to pass by that question.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. We just had a minute and we're already beyond that.

Mr Gravelle: Let me actually follow up on that for Mr Shea because it really is an important discussion. I think by the minister saying, "Gee, we're going to provide free access to print material" -- the fact is that the world has changed, is changing. You gave an illustration of it in your presentation.

You can argue that it's too cute by half to say we're going to give free access to printed material when indeed the world is racing ahead of us. In essence we're taking away free access, and you shouldn't be promoting it as such if the world is changing that way.

Mr Sherman: Yes, I think we should be promoting free access, but how much does it cost and so on? How much can the municipality afford? These are policy decisions the local library boards are going to have to make and I guess you, as the senior level of government, can set the direction.

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming before us today. Certainly there isn't anybody around this table who doesn't support the contention that we need to evolve and change and respond to the reality of the day.

You did, however, present some challenges to the government re this bill. I would ask you if you would support or encourage the government members to support an amendment. Would this go a ways to alleviating some of your fears that would guarantee the continued existence of public boards and a majority of those boards being citizen appointees? Would you support and encourage the government members to support an amendment that would see free access to all information supplied by libraries?

Mr Sherman: I thought about the first question you've asked and it's a very difficult question. I'd like not to even answer it. I don't know if I have the political skills not to answer it. I suppose with the affluxion of time the Chairman will come to my aid.

It's a policy decision that you have to bear the responsibility for. It can go both ways. We're spending $130 million in Metro Toronto. Most of it comes from the local taxpayer, the local government, and I think if the significant majority of the funds are coming from the local government, then those who represent the local government should control it. There should be significant citizen input into the library.

Free access of library materials: In theory you're right, 100% right: Let everybody have access to information. It's priorities we have to establish in times of declining resources and allocation of services and other necessary areas. Municipalities are going to have to draw the line someplace. It's a tough question. I don't know if I'm qualified to answer that.

Thank you for raising it. It's important.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Sherman.

We will now recess until 1:15.

The committee recessed from 1228 to 1324.

ONTARIO PUBLIC LIBRARIES STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS COUNCIL

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Our first presenter today is the Ontario Public Libraries Strategic Directions Council, chaired by Colleen Abbott.

Ms Colleen Abbott: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Colleen Abbott. I am the chair of the Ontario Public Libraries Strategic Directions Council. I'm accompanied today by Hazel Thornton-Lazier, the vice-chair of the council, and C.K. Tan, the president of Avita Technologies Corp.

The membership of our council is drawn from a broad cross-section of library organizations that serve the needs and interests of public libraries throughout the province. These organizations, which are listed at the conclusion of our brief, represent every kind of public library in Ontario, from very large, urban libraries to very small, remote, rural libraries.

The purpose of the strategic directions council is a very simple one: to further the development of public library services for the people of Ontario. Part of our mandate is to serve as a communications vehicle about issues concerning public libraries, and that of course is why we are here today.

The council has prepared a brief on Bill 109 that has been distributed to you. We hope that you will take the opportunity to read it and to understand our views on the proposed legislation.

For our presentation to you today, the council would like to focus on the purposes of Bill 109, an exciting venture that the public library community has initiated and in fact has already commenced in partnership with the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation and a private sector consortium.

The purpose statement of Bill 109 focuses on equitable access to information through a province-wide network. Last week, Network 2000 was launched. Network 2000 is a visionary initiative that will be a major component in the creation of the province-wide public library network. At the launch Mr C.K. Tan, president of Avita Technologies, the lead in the private sector consortium supporting this initiative, presented the private sector vision of public libraries in Ontario, of their role in information access and the renewal of Ontario's economy.

The council has asked C.K. to participate in our presentation today with an abbreviated form of his presentation of last week in order that you too may have a sense of that vision.

Mr C.K. Tan: The virtual library is actually the thing of tomorrow. What you are seeing right now is that the Network 2000 initiative is the private sector's and the government's together. The private sector involves Avita Technologies, Microsoft, AST and Bay Networks, and this mandate is to build a virtual library in Ontario.

What you're going to see is that we recognize that the library, that information today is most powerful, and all of you here probably know that the people who own the information are the ones who have the upper hand over other organizations.

Industrial society: Canada is ahead of the Third World because we have a very powerful knowledge base and a very good social infrastructure. Many of the early industrialists recognized the importance of libraries to provide the knowledge and also the infrastructure to nurse the growth of society. One of these people, as you know, was Andrew Carnegie. He built hundreds of libraries. These libraries provided knowledge to the children, and the children became society's backbone. I believe that libraries actually build societies and libraries have a key role in the developing of the economy and the growth of countries.

Libraries are the hubs of societies in the sense that they are places where people work and meet together. They exchange information. The librarian provides the role of collecting and sorting the information. Yesterday, the library was a paper-based society where people just go through paper. Today, and in the future, it's electronically based. The virtual library or the Network 2000 initiative is to support in this area. The virtual library needs the central governments to support commitments on the network initiative itself.

What we have mentioned is that librarians are the unsung heroes. They are the people who have worn many hats and their contribution has always been overlooked, underestimated and unappreciated. That is the real thing here.

We believe libraries will have new demands, especially of a new electronic age. Network 2000 is actually a province-wide network to provide information and electronic media. You will see the role of the library change. The library people will no longer just go to libraries. If you provide a remote user request, people can access information from home. You have on-line help to the chat line. The library will also provide top-quality information.

The library role will serve the small business and also serve a fast-growing sector called SOHO. You've probably heard about that. It's the small office and home office sector.

I'm going to go into a data part to show you the economic benefit to libraries, our prediction that it will benefit these sectors, and you'll see that with Network 2000 the clock will clear up. That's the future of Ontario.

1330

SDC, the strategic directions council, initiated the Network 2000 strategy many years ago. They understood it's a big mountain to cross in terms of the difficulties that society is going to face. They came up with a couple of areas, a common strategy that has to have big infrastructure building for the libraries; provide training for the librarians; digitize the contents so that information can pass electronically; partnership with the private sector -- that's why we are here today with all the organizations, to help the public sector; marketing the concept to help some of the small organizations; and most important, to provide standards and registration so that organizations can work together.

The virtual library: The concept is that you access information by electronic media. However, the tools to make it happen are no longer paper tools; you have the digital format. It's a place where you share information. Also, librarians need training so that they also can access all this information remotely.

Today many organizations already have their own community. I believe these communities need to be connected together. You need a central body to do that. The provincial government needs to form that central body and it needs to be connected to form a virtual library.

The goal of Network 2000, which is the virtual library, is to provide a standard library implementation and establish Ontario library network standards. It will also ensure that remote communities have equal access to knowledge and information. There is no point in building a highway when there's no knowledge in it. Ontario also is to become a leader in the knowledge-based society.

We believe that Network 2000 and also the future Ontario will have a direct impact on the economy. It will create multiple jobs, and with the multiple technology we're going to develop through it, we will really be able to export it. They call it virtual library technology. Today you are probably listening to some visionary statements. Twenty years from now you will probably tell your grandchildren, "Your dad was listening to how the society changed to the electronic forms."

The social and economic impact of Network 2000 will save millions of dollars. That's what we believe. It will help the economy to grow. We believe the secret weapon of society is still the library. However, the library is no longer paper-based but is still a library of interconnection together by electronic media.

There is a justification as to why I say that the library will save money. We believe that in the future there will be a lot of small business home offices. People will work from home. These people need to access information. They don't have to go to the library. Network 2000 will provide their needs, their connection. We estimate there are 100,000 SOHO users right now and they are growing. They are the fastest-growing sector of society. We estimate a user might go 10 times to do research on information. Each time it costs $50. That's why we arrive at a $500 saving per SOHO user. We believe there's a $50-million saving in society alone. I strongly believe that government should put money back to support this initiative.

Small business: Every one of you knows that small business is the fastest-growing sector of society. It provides the most new jobs in Ontario. I'm a small business guy. I understand the requirements of how sometimes I need information. Unfortunately, I do not have the support or the big corporation like GM and Ford Motor. They have their own librarians. I wish access to this organization. So Network 2000 will allow me, from the architectural design, to access libraries as a service. We estimate there are around 100,000 small businesses in Ontario; probably more than that.

Assume that I have to do a simple research and this research takes me through the libraries and helps me to benefit from the service strategy requirement. I think I might make probably $100,000 per usage of the library. If we do that times 100,000, we see that there is probably $100 million of contribution to society. I want to make sure that society never forgets the importance of the virtual library and the role the library plays in society.

In conclusion, we always believed it is not you in here who built the libraries, it's really the infrastructure, the library that we have today that built our society and put us ahead of people. Andrew Carnegie is a person who had the vision and helped us to build society, and I really don't want to see that destroyed. We have a new secret weapon, Network 2000, which requires the essential support of the government.

Thank you for inviting me here today.

Ms Abbott: I just want to mention that C.K. gave a version here of his presentation and he kindly has given you copies of the fuller presentation for your information.

I hope now that you have some sense of the excitement of our community about this project, about a province-wide initiative that will enable the purposes of Bill 109, that will ensure equitable access to information is achieved for all the citizens of Ontario regardless of their geographic location. This is a province-wide initiative. It will be realized only if provincial interest is retained in Ontario's public library system, only if there is a strong role for the province of Ontario in the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, a role that is inclusive of funding, provincial coordination of local initiatives and leadership for the libraries of Ontario and the people that we serve.

We thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

Mr Gravelle: That was very exciting. It really is obviously a look into the future and I'm very grateful that you had an opportunity to do that.

If I may, I'd like to ask you one question, though, in terms of your presentation, which I did get a chance to look at. I note that on the issue of governance -- this is an issue that we're probably going to be dealing with consistently in the next three or four days of hearings -- you have some concerns in terms of the definition of the library board, and indeed you think Bill 109 needs to have some changes to it to include particular requirements. Can you tell us a little bit about that for the committee?

Ms Abbott: We fully support the intent of the legislation, which is that libraries should be controlled at the local level. We have, in many of our communities, operated that way and do support that.

Our concern is that those local governments have some framework in which library boards will be framed so that there is consistency across the province and so that there is effective leadership at that level. The role of the citizen has been simply invaluable in that process. It's hard to imagine that many hours being devoted to the development of another service in this province.

Mr Gravelle: So you think it's something that should be in the legislation to make it clearer for those in the communities.

Mr Martin: Thanks for coming. I find this tremendously exciting, and I don't think there's any of us who don't want to get ourselves there. The only problem of course is accessibility. We both come from northern Ontario, where distance, weather and geography is a huge challenge for anything that we do. How do we get this into places like Chapleau, Wawa and Manitouwadge?

Ms Abbott: That's what this project is all about.

Mr Tan: Network 2000 itself -- actually, right now there are 15 nodes being built. There are 450 libraries or more in Ontario, so this is just the beginning of the building of nodes. There is more funding required. However, the first 50 will actually make sure that all the major backbone is built up and slowly -- it's not that the project will be done by today. Usually there is at least a five- to 10-year initiative to make sure the whole -- my vision is that at any time somebody can be staying in Wawa and be able to do it from home and access any information, no different from a person who is in Toronto. That will mean going through a lot of infrastructure building, interconnections, and theoretically a person in Wawa can actually request a service of any library to search this information from it.

Mr Young: Mr Tan, I find the project very exciting and I understand that you've received some considerable support from our government, $366,000, plus more from economic development, $1 million. I think it's very exciting.

I wanted to ask you something on the technical side. Waterloo university, Guelph and Laurier share a library and they have one-day delivery to any one of the three. I'm trying to figure out what a library is going to look like in 10 years, and obviously, this will be part of it. Could this network be connected in future to the other provinces, to the United States and worldwide? Because of course we know knowledge doesn't stop at borders.

Mr Tan: The answer is that we have trademarked the virtual library itself, and yes, the answer is there will be two areas. One is a corporate connection, one is voluntary, and Internet is one of the worldwide libraries. Unfortunately, Internet is not organized. You go down there, you don't know where to look for it. The role of the librarian will never change. The role of the librarian is always to sort and provide information. Today, you want to do research, you go to the library, they will give you that kind of quality of information record. So the answer is yes, you will see that.

Right now we believe that's the first technology ever going to be implemented and we probably expect to see other provinces coming along and probably that technology will be exported to them.

The Chair: Thank you all for coming forward and making a presentation today.

1340

AURORA PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Verna Ross please come forward. Good afternoon, Ms Ross. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Verna Ross: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Today I speak as the chair of the Aurora Public Library board. Library service has been part of Aurora for nearly 150 years. It began with a Mechanics Institute in the 1850s. It has grown and flourished and now has nearly 25,000 cardholders in a town of 33,000 citizens. Our library has been part of many changes in legislation, many changes in municipal boundaries and many changes in town councils. We are pleased to be part of the current development in legislation governing public libraries.

Most of the funding for this long service was, and continues to be, provided by the town of Aurora's town council. The town, through its council, supports library service with one out of nine tax dollars raised for local services. That's not talking about what the county takes and what the school board takes, but one out of nine tax dollars for local service in Aurora goes to libraries. This support will not change because of this proposed act. Citizen support for library service in Aurora is very strong. It is seen as a necessary municipal service.

The Aurora Public Library board has been following and responding to the changes now in this act since the issues were first raised by Mr Eves in his financial statement on November 29, 1995. We have expressed our views to Minister Mushinski through copies of letters to our MPP Frank Klees. We have met with Mr Klees twice on these matters. We think Minister Mushinski has done a marvellous job of protecting the essential underpinnings of the library system.

I wish to address several aspects of the proposed act.

The Aurora Public Library board supports the three principles outlined in the preamble: public libraries successfully providing Ontarians' information needs; public libraries successfully providing Ontarians access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society; public libraries successfully providing Ontarians access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network. We ask that each clause in the proposed act be measured against these three purposes.

We are pleased that the act states that public libraries continue to be governed by public library boards. We believe that Ontario will be best served by library boards that ensure a balance between municipal fiscal control and citizen participation in the planning and delivery of impartial library service that meets community needs.

Library boards also ensure a very effective form of volunteerism due to the high level of expertise and the commitment of library trustees. The Ontario government supports the valuable role of dedicated volunteers in local services. Minister Mushinski has had this important segment of our society added to her mandate. This was one of the recommendations in the Report of the Advisory Board on the Volunteer Sector, Sustaining a Civic Society in Ontario. We ask that library boards consist of a combination of elected municipal councillors and volunteer citizen members.

The concept of tax-funded core library service was maintained. Libraries are not free. They have never been free. They are tax-funded. We find the proposed definition of core service that focuses on the borrowing of books and print material to be very narrow and somewhat old-fashioned for a modern library, as you've just seen from the presentation before me. We find the definition at odds with the Ontario government's practice of publishing material in electronic rather than print formats. Tax-funded access to materials published by the government of Ontario has to be provided through the province's infrastructure. Therefore, we ask that the definition of core service be broadened to ensure that the citizens of Ontario have equal access to information, regardless of the container in which the information is stored.

The proposed act maintains a provincial commitment to the infrastructure necessary to give all citizens of Ontario equal access to a wide range of information sources. We are pleased that the act states that the province will continue to fund the sharing of resources and the development of the networks necessary to give all citizens access to the resources they need to thrive in their business and personal lives. Therefore, we support the provisions in the proposed act which keep a strong provincial role in resource sharing and technology infrastructure.

In conclusion, the Aurora Public Library board believes in the concept that public libraries are community resources where all citizens can access current information from a wide range of sources. Our municipal council pays 92% of our budget. Yes, we must compete with arenas, seniors' centres and other municipal services, but we have provided library service for nearly 150 years. The citizens of Aurora will continue to work with their council to provide the level of service they think meets their community's needs. The provincial infrastructure will enable our citizens to reach out to many sources for the resources they require for recreational reading, information and life-long learning.

The Local Control of Public Libraries Act must enable the Aurora Public Library to fulfil the three purposes in the preamble: a public library successfully providing Aurorians' information needs; a public library successfully providing Aurorians access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society; a public library successfully providing Aurorians access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. You certainly present in a very positive, constructive light some of the challenges that you see facing us with Bill 103. The points you make in the little boxes are certainly consistent with what we've heard from most people who have come forward so far: an emphasis on the need for citizen members on boards; an emphasis on the need for access to information through various mediums; and a continued strong provincial role in the delivery of the service. What happens, in your mind, if we're not able to get that kind of guarantee built in to the bill and this government moves forward with the initiative that is suggested here, in your experience and understanding of the library system?

Ms Ross: I don't understand what you mean by "guarantee."

Mr Martin: If there's no guarantee in the bill that we will have volunteer citizen members on boards, if there's no guarantee in the bill that access to information through various mediums is going to be free to citizens, if there's no guarantee in the bill that the province will continue to be a major player in the delivery of library services, what happens to the library system?

Ms Ross: I don't think the sky is falling. My position in this paper is that the municipalities have provided library service for 150 years. Because the province turns over the other 8% of our funding to our council and lets our council build its own library board, library service in Aurora will continue to be provided at the same level at which it is now.

Mr Martin: Really, what you're saying here is that it would be nice if this was in the bill, but it's not a big deal.

Ms Ross: It's not a big deal for us in Aurora; it may be a big deal for other people. We have been through several changes in legislation over many years and library service continues to thrive, and the citizens of Aurora, as someone said this morning, will elect a council that will put in a good library service.

1350

Mrs Munro: Thank you very much for bringing forward here what I think is really one of the most succinct presentations we've had. I wanted to ask you a question about the issue you raised in one of your lines about the fact that nothing is free, that obviously this service has been provided by the taxpayer.

There's been a lot of discussion about the issue of costs and the issue of fees. A presenter earlier today referred to the fact that print was cheaper than some of the other forms of media that are available. So I want to ask you, is there a role, in your view, in the area of fees, and what kind of role should fees play in relation to real cost?

Ms Ross: Since libraries are not free, they are tax-funded, in discussion with the council in Aurora they will decide which items will be tax-funded and which will have fees beyond what mandate is in this bill. If the citizens of Aurora say, "We want the online service provided free," they will put the pressure on their council and it will be provided free, the same as services that in other towns are charged for are not necessarily charged in Aurora. I think that's a local option and that many local councils and many local library boards under this new provision will not charge fees for many of the things they are permitted to charge for. I don't think permission necessarily means that everyone will charge for them.

The point the Etobicoke library made this morning that once you are allowed to charge fees in certain issues you can market your skills in your library or market your services, we cannot do that at this point. I think it may make changes and some things will be charged for, but I don't think necessarily that everything that's not mandated will be charged for. Each local option is a very good way of going.

Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon, Ms Ross, and thank you very much for your presentation. Certainly 25,000 cardholders in a community of 33,000 is pretty amazing. It's very impressive.

Despite your optimism that regardless of what happens, the municipality will still support the libraries, can you not see a situation there, potentially at least, where because of increased pressures on the taxpayers, that belief might be shaken, that there obviously are going to be other priorities that go in there and there will be a need, if the provincial funding is removed entirely, to find extra money? Do you not see that there is a certain danger there that it'll be hard, with some of the downloading pressures, to maintain that support?

Ms Ross: No. I trust the democratic process in the town of Aurora. If they want library service, they'll elect people who will give it to them, and that's the responsibility of the citizens in the town. I'm a citizen appointment on the library board and I would support that continuation, similar to under the police boards, but I don't think it has to be a majority, and because of these changes in this act, that municipalities are going to walk away from libraries. I don't share your cynicism about municipal libraries.

Mr Gravelle: I'm not being cynical; it truly is a concern. I think it's a legitimate one, because other communities have certainly expressed it. You say you're a citizen appointee?

Ms Ross: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: Which does speed into the whole point about how there should be citizen involvement in the boards. You have it here as a recommendation and it is a theme that's emerging. Regardless of whether people are supportive of the bill, they agree that it's needed. So I think you would want to ask why the government wouldn't at least put this in the legislation. They seem to be stating the same things. They want citizen involvement in it; they want volunteer involvement.

Ms Ross: As I said in the beginning, these came out of the statements way back in November 1995 which came from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. I think we've moved this government a long way by consultation and I would like to move it a little bit farther on the citizens, but if you go back to where they started with the position of AMO, then we would not have had nearly as many things that are already in this act. So the government has moved in the right direction and the reinforcement is of --

Mr Gravelle: You made a great point about core services, and as the government itself is publishing material in electronic form, the whole definition of core services is becoming quite outdated if you leave it to print material. I think that's a good, strong recommendation as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Ross, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

ONTARIO LIBRARY TRUSTEES' ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Would Hilary Bates Neary please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce your companion at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of committee members and Hansard.

Ms Hilary Bates Neary: My name is Hilary Bates Neary, and I'm the president for 1997 of the Ontario Library Trustees' Association. I'm a trustee on the London Public Library board. This gentlemen with me is Larry Moore, who is the executive director of the Ontario Library Association, of which the Ontario Library Trustees' Association is a division. I have distributed the larger brief from the Ontario Library Trustees' Association and I intend to read a much shorter executive summary of that.

The Ontario Library Trustees' Association represents library trustees from across this province. We are pleased to have this opportunity to address the committee on Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997.

We recognize that the government's intent in this new act is to strengthen the role of the municipalities of Ontario in the development of public library services. With this in mind, the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation has retained in this legislation the current governance model: library boards. This brief makes recommendations which trustees believe will more carefully define the size and composition of library boards.

In this regard we recommend that this committee consider the new model for police services boards and adapt some of its provisions for public library boards. In order to maintain the independence of library governance from the political process, and to ensure that the needs of the public are paramount in the development of library policy, we recommend that boards should consist of a majority of citizen representatives. In order that library boards can function effectively, we recommend a minimum number of trustees. To maintain the principles of open government so important to Ontarians, we recommend that meetings of library boards be public and that vacancies on boards be advertised.

The proposed Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, begins with three very laudable purposes. They would serve as an important vision statement to the rest of the act, if the act described how municipalities were to achieve these purposes or what the role of the province would be in ensuring that these goals were achieved. The purposes are also nullified or contradicted by the new Municipal Act regulation which describes the parameters under which public libraries must provide free services. These parameters are very narrow indeed, leaving the way open for municipalities to charge for basic reference services and for access to information in non-print formats. In a knowledge-based economy, which Ontario is well on the way to achieving, giving municipalities the power to levy fees on information or on services which instruct the public in accessing information resources makes no business sense at all.

This brief makes recommendations regarding the definition of free core library services. Trustees strongly believe that libraries are at the centre of the lifelong learning process and provide essential support to citizens throughout the province at all stages of life, at all levels of education and to all degrees of literacy. The new fee regulation would erect serious barriers of access to those citizens with reduced economic means, citizens who probably most require the resources of the public library.

The new act allows public library boards to "work cooperatively with other publicly funded libraries to improve library service in the community." Currently many public library boards and school boards are pursuing joint projects with the blessing of all levels of government. Such projects often involve the merging of services into one public facility with one set of public policies. A legislative framework in which public libraries are charging fees to access reference and information services and non-print formats within the library collections will be a major barrier to the future implementation of such shared projects with boards of education.

The London Public Library board is currently one of the boards in the province that is working very closely with Human Resources Development Canada to bring job bank terminals into public libraries so that members of the public who are pursuing career changes or job searches can use these terminals to access government information about the availability of jobs. This works very closely within our mandate to offer career support services and job-hunting services as part of our reference and information services.

The grants we are receiving from HRDC enable our library to upgrade our own technological framework, the technology by which we help provide public access to the Internet for other information services. These grants come to us, and we are now able to offer an enhanced service because we offer these services free of charge. If we were charging for such access to information, we would not be able to make such a contract with HRDC and we would not be able to provide our public these important kinds of reference and information services into basic job support and career support requirements. That's another example.

We recommend that this committee revisit the purposes of this act in conjunction with the fee regulation so that core library services which include access to reference and information services as well as library collections in all formats continue to be free to the public.

1400

The province has had a long and successful partnership with municipally run public libraries in establishing networks for lending library materials across municipal boundaries and for connecting libraries for electronic information sharing and document delivery, as Mr Tan recently showed us. In order that this mutually beneficial relationship continue, we recommend that the provincial government continue its per household grants to library boards as a means of funding library resources which can be shared across municipal boundaries, as well as a mechanism whereby compliance with province-wide sharing protocols can be enforced.

Since it is of the upmost importance that all citizens of Ontario fully participate in the information economy, we recommend that the provincial government continue to play an active role in the province-wide library network and to develop equitable standards of access to information resources which all public libraries can work together to achieve.

Since we believe that the provincial government has a major interest in continuing to play this important role in the library community, we have recommended the inclusion of a fourth purpose to the act: 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.

Thank you for this opportunity to present the Ontario Library Trustees' Association recommendations to Bill 109. I would be pleased to give this committee and the ministry any further assistance in strengthening this new act.

Mr Shea: Thank you for the presentation. Perhaps I could just ask you a preliminary question concerning the issue of governance. I'd like to go back to your view in terms of the relationship between library boards and municipal councils. In your view, what is the role of the council?

Ms Bates Neary: Vis-à-vis the entire library board?

Mr Shea: Yes.

Ms Bates Neary: In Ontario, councils appoint library boards and are the major source of funding for library boards. We have certainly found in the broad experience across the province that on the whole there is an excellent relationship between councils and library boards. Library boards, because of their volunteer nature and their relationship with the public, can often bring a vision of library service to their communities which is very broad and very representative.

Because of our volunteer nature we take a tremendous amount of work off the shoulders of municipal councils, and as municipal councils are being downloaded with new tasks, I think this particular role is even more important today. Other people who have presented today have described the great breadth of experience that trustees bring to their jobs, and this can be very valuable, as I've said, often in the development of such joint projects with other bodies in the community.

I can certainly describe instances where trustees are often able to deflect criticism about how libraries operate and the policies they devise from the shoulders of politicians. The hand's-length relationship can be very useful.

Mr Shea: Would you recognize that there is also a conundrum in terms of accountability in the relationships where, for example, if a library board establishes a certain policy, the view might be that if you don't like it, you go and appeal to the entire board, and if you don't like what that board says you can go to the council and appeal that, but there's nothing that council can do either? Would you see in that some kind of confusion and contradiction?

Ms Bates Neary: Councils appoint trustees who they feel will represent the broader wishes of the community. Library boards themselves usually have to develop mechanisms for listening to the community, and when it comes to very controversial changes that may be put in place in library policy, libraries certainly have a responsibility to consult with their communities, and usually do so.

That doesn't mean you can always please everybody in a community. Politicians are extremely aware of that. That is part of the political conundrum, pleasing everybody. Boards, which have a hands-off relationship with council but often a much more direct relationship with their public, have to contend with that too.

Mr Shea: If the role is to represent the broader view of the community and if it is also to listen, in some ways that is also something a locally elected representative might want to do or might be capable of doing.

Ms Bates Neary: Yes, and I have certainly had great experience, at the trustee level, of working with councillors who understand that very important component of the political process. But it's not unusual for politicians to delegate this kind of representation to other bodies, and we see it in other publicly elected bodies within the province. It is part of the governance process.

Mr Gravelle: I'd like to pursue that a little further myself. The minister herself said this morning that indeed it was a compromise, on the one hand eliminating boards, on the other hand maintaining boards but recognizing municipal accountability. The concern that's being expressed consistently is that unless there is some guarantee of citizen involvement on the boards, they might not in any way serve the purpose of what a library board is today and what their value is. I take it that really is your concern too. Everybody seems to agree that citizen involvement is important. Why not just put something in the legislation that would make it a requirement, particularly as it seems that many local politicians might actually appreciate it?

Ms Bates Neary: That certainly is our argument. We feel that library boards, over time, have given tremendously to the development of public library services in this province. The model has really stood the test of time. It has enabled a great deal of flexibility at the local level; it has brought new ideas into local administration; it has enabled libraries to connect with other publicly funded institutions in the community. We feel trustees bring a tremendous depth of experience and are still accountable, by the appointment process and by the funding process, to their local municipal councils.

Mr Gravelle: At the very end you made exactly the point that I would want to make too, which is that there is little doubt that if the citizenship requirement was put in there -- it's not as if the citizen board members are going to be irresponsible about the demands they make in their municipalities. They're going to be part of the community; they're going to recognize what the funding crunches are all about, but they'll be able to be there. You can argue that it's just a good idea from everybody's point of view to lock this in the legislation and protect everyone.

Ms Bates Neary: Councils currently have line-by-line control over our budgets. That is ultimate control.

Mr Gravelle: If you trust the municipalities to support the board, you can certainly trust the citizens of the community to sit on the board and do the job as well, is my feeling.

Ms Bates Neary: In our experience, citizens pay a tremendous amount of attention to what the library board does.

Mr Martin: Sorry I missed the end of your presentation -- it's really busy around here these days, trying to keep track of everything -- but I think I got the gist of where you were going. I think you are consistent with what other people have been telling us, the concern about the board and having adequate citizen representation on the board, some would say a majority. As a matter of fact, the majority of people who have come have said it makes sense that the majority of the board be citizen appointments.

The question of access to information in the different formats, the question of a provincial role: We had, before you, the chair of the Aurora board, who said it was important but it wasn't a big deal. In your discussions with the other members of your association, is it a big deal for them, or is it just, "It would be nice, but...."?

Ms Bates Neary: I think it is a big deal. You are always going to meet boards that bring a particularly new experience to the trustee world and you are going to meet councillors who will fall on either side of this particular question, but I think the majority of trustees in this province value the contribution they have been able to bring to their community and particularly value the library services delivered at the local level. They are very much aware of how that is not only dependent upon the municipal interests but also upon the larger provincial interests, that we are an interconnected institution and it's important that we maintain strong relationships with our community and with the levels of government that affect our citizens. That's one reason we make such a strong plea for the continued development of the provincial presence in public libraries.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today. We appreciate it.

1410

ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Would Terry Mundell please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Mundell. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Terry Mundell: Mr Chair and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today to put forward to you the views of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

Municipalities generally support the intent behind Bill 109. Clearly, the goal of the legislation is to improve accountability for library services by providing a legislative framework that facilitates a library system that is integrated within larger local service systems. Bill 109 falls somewhat short of this goal by providing a framework that retains the current special-purpose body model of service management.

Generally speaking, libraries are already a municipal responsibility. In 1997, property taxpayers will contribute $300 million in funding for library services in communities across Ontario. Bill 109 is intended to serve as a conduit to improve accountability and efficiency so that the municipal sector can continue to maintain a high-quality library system as provincial financial support for libraries of approximately $24 million is withdrawn.

It is by now a familiar scenario. As the province withdraws financial support for important public services, it endeavours to take apart the structural barriers that stand in the way of efficient and cost-effective service delivery. It is a strategy that is designed to assist municipalities to cope with the offloading of provincial responsibilities for financial support.

By necessity, municipalities support this strategy. Municipalities have long advocated for government initiatives that allow important public services to be delivered more efficiently and effectively, regardless of which level of government is paying the bills. AMO has pressed successive provincial governments to cast off outdated models of governance that waste taxpayers' resources.

We were greatly encouraged when this government acknowledged in Bill 26, in 1995, that special-purpose bodies were fundamentally at odds with good government. Generally, municipal government experience with the special-purpose body approach is that they entangle responsibilities, limit service integration, and keep accountability at arm's length.

While municipalities acknowledge that the province is responsible for comprehensive provincial policy and the broader systems that link us all together, local management, local decisions and the identification of priorities are the business of municipalities. Excessive control and regulation will prevent municipal governments from finding efficiencies to maintain services for municipal taxpayers. Taxpayers want better management of their tax dollars.

Bill 109 clings to the outdated concept of a mandatory special-purpose body for the management of library services. While municipal councils exercise control over library budgets, the province's decision to mandate a role for library boards will ensure that the management of library services remains entangled. The bill does not help municipal governments to better integrate aspects of library system management into existing municipal management structures and therefore does not maximize the potential for cost-efficiency and savings.

The province should not, and need not, mandate that library services will be delivered through a library board. How services are delivered and managed is the responsibility of municipal governments. Municipal governments recognize the importance of library services and the value of investment in quality services in our communities. The level of arbitrary control set out in Bill 109 is simply unnecessary and therefore offensive to accountable elected local governments.

Bill 109 sets out an elaborate framework for the creation of new library boards and for the amalgamation and sharing of library services among communities. This framework should fall within the new Municipal Act. For example, the authority for joint service arrangements would be possible under the "natural person" powers and the governmental powers in the new Municipal Act. The libraries act should simply direct that any joint service agreement address the disposition of assets and liabilities. The migration of library services should also be guided by the new Municipal Act.

It's preferable to have library services and other municipal services fall under the general authority of the new Municipal Act. However, barring a decision to rely on general new Municipal Act authority, Bill 109 must explicitly provide for the downward migration of services, as well as the upward migration of library services. The public will be better served, however, if the administration and management of all municipal services are treated similarly and fall under the umbrella of the new Municipal Act. If any restriction is needed, it could be placed in the Municipal Act or fall to separate legislation, such as the Public Libraries Act.

Bill 109 sets out a framework for establishing, maintaining and appointing library boards. In effect, it sets up and maintains a mandatory duplicate management system for a basic municipal service: libraries. A municipal council, not the province, should determine the need for a library board as part of its authority to organize itself as envisaged by the government's consultation paper on a new Municipal Act.

Where a municipal council feels a board is needed to deliver the service, the council should make the appropriate rules governing the board's composition, as well as its roles and responsibilities. Elected councils should have the flexibility to determine and review the structure of the appointees and the board's administrative and management structure, including the use of municipal resources and systems.

If the library board structure is to be imposed on municipal governments through this legislation, councils must have the flexibility to make appointments and/or reconfirm appointments annually. The elected municipal council should also have the authority to reappoint members to a board or remove members from a board where the board fails to follow the council-approved budget. The bill is currently silent on this issue.

Bill 109 authorizes a board, "to the extent it considers it expedient," to use any outside services or personnel, and use or link into any financial, accounting or administrative systems. The bill also gives a board the discretion to adopt the policies and procedures of the appointing council and to set out the board's authority as employer.

Bill 109 must be amended to give councils clear authority to set such rules. The authority set out in subsection 10(3) should be moved to section 6 and appropriately amended to give an elected council the ability to require a library board to use the financial, administrative and management systems as the council deems appropriate. In most instances, those systems will likely be those of the municipality. In this way, there is greater assurance that efficiencies will be found in the administrative and management areas rather than the library function itself. Section 10 should simply require a library board to follow the rules set by council under section 6.

Bill 109's provisions setting out regulatory authority for the province to control user fees is unnecessary and inappropriate. As expected, municipal governments have consistently, and without exception, demonstrated sound judgement in how they have used their authority to set fees under Bill 26. Part of the reason is that municipalities make decisions, including decisions about user fees, in consultation with the public.

Regulating free access to libraries and free borrowing of printed material is unnecessary and inconsistent with this government's commitment to permissive legislation for municipalities. If this regulatory approach is not altered, AMO and municipalities must be consulted on the content of such regulations or future amendments to them, and the act must explicitly provide for this consultation.

Bill 109 also provides library boards with the authority to buy and sell land and to commit to capital investment or lease arrangements. According these powers to special-purpose bodies does nothing to improve public accountability for public resources. Real accountability requires more than just budget approval by elected governments. It includes, among other things, the management of assets and liabilities, human resources, technology systems and decisions made in-year that meet the overall objectives of a well-managed service system. Such accountability must rest with elected officials.

The bill also sets out special provisions for audits. Municipal councils should determine, as part of their rules, whether an audited statement of a library board should be consolidated with those of the municipality. Municipal governments should have the ability to choose whether to have a single, consolidated audit opinion or to have a separate audit opinion for the board.

1420

Bill 109 should not legislate municipal administrative, accounting and management matters. Rather, it should refer to the 1997 Municipal Act setting out provincial authority for municipal infrastructure, and services outside the new act will not enhance accountability or public understanding.

Bill 109 also provides for regulations dealing with the establishment, organization and management of a province-wide public library network. AMO supports the concept of information networks. AMO's MUNICOM network information system, which links municipal governments, is a good example. Efficiencies for a province-wide public library network may even be achieved or enhanced through the use of MUNICOM's infrastructure.

Experience in some parts of the province indicates that the cost of interlibrary loan of material can sometimes be greater than the cost of purchasing the material. AMO encourages the ministry to review the costs of the interlibrary loan system. This is an area where additional efficiencies may be found. AMO and municipalities must be consulted on any regulations affecting municipal revenues and expenditures, including technology systems, as part of the library budget.

In addition to Bill 109, there are other related government initiatives that have an impact on libraries. Bill 98, Development Charges Act, 1996, as introduced, will reduce capital funding for libraries by 30%. Bill 98 proposes to restrict the authority of municipal governments to levy development charges for growth-related capital investment. In effect, new libraries will not be built unless existing property taxpayers contribute 30% of the capital cost. Bill 98 has the potential to seriously undermine growth in Ontario's excellent library system. AMO urges the government to reconsider its plan to mandate a reduction in capital investment in libraries.

As was noted earlier, the province's decision to withdraw $24 million in operating funds from libraries will also create substantial challenges for the library system. In particular, it will make the delivery of services in large geographical areas, such as northern Ontario, very difficult. Ontario's library system is a valued and critical part of our communities. Municipal governments are committed to fostering excellence in Ontario's library system. They have demonstrated that commitment for decades by ensuring that libraries had the adequate resources they needed to meet the growing expectations of Ontario's communities. As the province withdraws financial support from the library system, local governments will be there to ensure that quality library services continue to be accessible to people all over Ontario.

Preserving quality services will, in some cases, require difficult decisions and tradeoffs. As the trustees of local resources, elected municipal governments are prepared to make those decisions and to be accountable for them. Now, more than ever, our libraries need to be an integral part of communities and the systems through which a range of important local services are delivered. Fragmenting that system by using special-purpose bodies to manage selected services does not help.

Bill 109 does make improvements to the existing structure and delivery of community library services. However, it falls short of municipal government's expectations and needs. It also falls short on the government's commitment to deregulation and greater empowerment of elected municipal governments.

Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon, Mr Mundell. In essence you're saying there should be no library boards at all, that the municipalities should simply have control of them. It seems to me that -- are you familiar with it? -- in the province of Alberta the same downloading or situation took place, yet they've maintained library boards because they felt that library boards obviously provided a very useful purpose and a help. Are you familiar with that? You're not.

Do you not feel that library boards provide a useful function as they are now constituted?

Mr Mundell: The situation is one in terms of governance and accountability, and it seems to be one which needs to be consistent across the services which we are elected and accountable for as municipal governments. The types of governance structures which may be set up within our community structures are ones which should be determined locally and could include different models, whether it is a committee of council, whether there are different models that may be considered.

There seem to be a consistency in approach and an ease of understanding and an accountability for the dollars which are collected from the taxpayer that need to be very much paid attention to.

Mr Martin: I think your presentation was helpful in that you were very clear on the position of AMO re libraries coming in under the umbrella of the critical mass of services that municipalities offer, and that any kind of a special board having governance over that doesn't fit. But it's the context that I wanted to ask you a question from. You said here, "It is a strategy that is designed to assist municipalities to cope with the offloading of provincial responsibilities or financial support." Then you said that by necessity, municipalities must support this strategy. What did you mean by that?

Mr Mundell: The issue of the day, of course, is one where we are facing, in our structure, some serious changes to the way that we in municipal government operate and do our business. Of course everybody is very well aware of the disentanglement-type exercise which is going on right now, with the province looking at changing some services that the municipal sector will be responsible for.

We very much need to make sure that all the items we are responsible for, accountable for, within our framework, that we raise funds for, we need to be able to have control over and make decisions based on the whole package of goods. It's the day of the dwindling dollar, that's clear. Decisions are far more difficult because dollars are fewer for us. We need to be able to control all the dollars within our purview and to make sure that we make decisions that best reflect what we have, what our ratepayers want and what our ratepayers can afford.

Mr Flaherty: Thank you, sir, for the presentation here today. If we look at the history of the development of public libraries in Ontario, and you can go back to Upper Canada, I'm struck by the governance model that developed over the years which was, as I understand it, and I rely to some extent on Mr Bruce's excellent book Free Books for All, wherein he notes the first library was in Niagara-on-the-Lake in 1800 -- the first library for public use in Upper Canada in 1800. It's quite remarkable when you think about it since that was obviously at least two generations before Confederation.

Has the model not worked well, that is, the model of the library board working in conjunction, in cooperation with the local authorities, with the municipal councils? Certainly that's the sense I get from the people from the county of Huron who are here this morning and the other presentations we've had from municipalities, that the working relationship over more than a century has been a good one.

Mr Mundell: In some areas of the province I don't doubt that the working relationship has been a good one. I think what we are dealing with today, though, is a situation which completely controls or changes the way municipal governments will be doing business and the types of services that we'd be responsible for. In looking to gain efficiencies to provide better government at lower cost, if you can, to make the almighty dollar stretch further, we need to be able to achieve efficiencies and savings in all parts of our operations, including the library sector. It's best if we can achieve those savings through the administrative natures versus the book natures if you can.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Mundell, for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

TORONTO PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Rick Goldsmith from the Toronto Public Library please come forward. Welcome to the committee. I'd appreciate it if you could introduce yourselves at the beginning for the benefit of Hansard.

Mr Rick Goldsmith: My name is Rick Goldsmith. I'm here to speak for the Toronto Public Library board. I'll just introduce the people in the room who are also from the library board. On my right is Edmundo Vasquez, who is past chair of a library and current chair and current member of the library board; and Babs Church is also a member of our library board. There are other board members in attendance, but space doesn't permit them to join us at the table, so I'll just ask them to raise their hands: Roger Smithies, Donna Denison, Ian Cole, Angela Rebeiro. As well, we have the CEO from the library and staff, including our union reps, in the audience. We're well represented today.

One of the comments that was made earlier this morning was that there was a pattern being recognized in the comments that are being made. I think our presentation in many ways will follow that pattern. I provide you with written comments and I will follow those, but I also will attempt to insert some elaboration where I think I must, responding to a question that was raised this morning. On the issue of patterns, I would say what that says, really, is that there is an amazing combined constituency, a massive combined constituency on certain issues.

1430

Our theme for our presentation is Keep the Connection: Keep the connection to information and keep the connection to volunteerism. Marilyn Mushinski understands that volunteer library boards are vital, and we quote her in our brief. She said, "Libraries in communities throughout the province have touched the lives of every Ontario resident and have made a very significant contribution to the quality of life that we enjoy."

Ms Mushinski has also said, "The province recognizes the great value of libraries to the economic health of the province through their role in creating a well-educated and literate workforce."

The people of Toronto also know it. They use daily and value the 33 branches and dozens of services we provide. Our library has seen a 51% increase in circulation since 1991, to some eight million items, and staff answer over one million questions annually. It's been estimated that 10 times as many people use libraries as attend sporting events, movies and cultural events combined. This is by way of giving you an example of the kind of constituency which we represent today.

Because libraries are so important, the library board urges you to amend two critical areas in Bill 109. We'd like to work with you to improve the act. The first area is that the act must guarantee that citizen volunteers are the majority members on library boards. The second area is that the act must guarantee free access to all library materials, be they print, audio-visual or electronic.

Bill 109 breaks the connection. Bill 109 removes the key ingredients of libraries and library boards: citizen participation and free access to information. It breaks the connection to the volunteerism that the minister spoke of this morning. Bill 109 effectively destroys the very qualities which have made our library system among the best in the world.

Bill 109 creates a patchwork of boards with differing responsibilities province-wide. It fails to live up to the minister's expectation of interconnectedness and partnership among various libraries. On the other hand, voluntary library boards keep a connection. Since the Free Public Libraries Act of 1882, provincial legislation has guaranteed a tradition of citizen involvement in libraries, with citizen volunteers being the majority members on all library boards. These library boards have felt passionate about principles of freedom of speech and freedom of access to all members of the public.

What, then, are some of the advantages of citizen involvement on library boards? On the issue of intellectual freedom and the advantages of library boards, our democracy is grounded in the principle of intellectual freedom. Citizen-based library boards have a strong tradition of upholding this freedom for the benefit of society as a whole, regardless of what pressures may be exerted on them.

We heard this morning a very good example of where a particular pressure may be brought to bear. Pressure to add to or remove items from library collections is an ongoing concern that library boards with their unique experience, time and community knowledge are best able to deal with and they provide a valuable function in this regard to the municipality.

On citizen participation in decision-making and the advantages of library boards, it is important to our society that volunteer citizens have a way to contribute meaningfully to our democratic institutions at the grass-roots level. People want a say in local services, and library boards allow them to participate in making decisions that directly affect them in their daily living in their neighbourhoods. This kind of citizen empowerment costs nothing but contributes enormously to the wellbeing of the community.

There is no loss of economy or accountability with volunteer citizen boards. Boards are fully accountable to the local municipality. The municipality can appoint the members of the board, has line-by-line financial control of its budget and can integrate administrative functions as it wishes. I'm almost amused by the suggestion that boards are unaccountable. I've been on boards for over a decade now, and I can tell you I feel quite accountable when I go before the council every year for my budget. I feel accountable every three years, and humble when I go to ask for reappointment, and I certainly feel accountable when I have over 100 members of the public in my board meeting protesting a direction of the board.

Mr Young: Have any of them ever been fired?

The Chair: Order.

Mr Goldsmith: Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I'm also somewhat amused by the issue -- not amused; that's the wrong word. I'm confused a little bit by this emphasis that perhaps some of the criticism is directed at a lack of trust of politicians. To the contrary. I have also lived through the situation where we've seen libraries evolve from only citizen boards through to one less than a majority comprised of citizen members, which means I've seen council members come on board. I can tell you I've met many good council members who have added a lot to our board meetings, but I've also met the other kind of politician who is a one-issue politician, defends only one point of view, and the other politician who's simply under water. He just cannot cope with the volume of information. The library is not high in his priorities.

On the other hand, I've never met a volunteer member of a library who volunteered not to attend, who volunteered because he didn't have an interest, who passed the screen provided by the municipality and arrived on the board with a special interest. To the contrary; I've met well-meaning and very professional people who have devoted their time unstintingly.

Returning to the text on page 4, volunteer time and expertise and the advantages of having citizen library boards:

"Voluntary action is a hallmark of a civic society, rooted in citizenship and social responsibility, and shaped by our concern for and obligation to one another." This contribution should be "celebrated as an integral part of a society in which we all want to live." This quote is from the Report of the Advisory Board on the Voluntary Sector.

Board members give freely of their time and expertise. On our board, 11 board members contribute over 150 hours of volunteer time a month, 1,500 hours annually, to the Toronto Public Library. This is the equivalent of one person devoting himself or herself full-time to the library. Can we afford to have a councillor or bureaucrat devote this number of hours to the libraries? Perhaps they would do it in their free time.

Many of our volunteers have special knowledge or skills in the areas of libraries, finance, law, education and information technology. It is not cost-effective to lose this enormous volunteer contribution and the goodwill that goes along with it.

Board members also share a deep personal commitment to libraries. All are library users, and many serve as a way of giving back to the community the benefits they themselves have derived from the library. On a personal note, in addition to working with libraries for over a decade on the library boards, I worked in a part-time job for libraries, and I'm quite happy and willing to give back the service that I have on a no-charge basis.

Local responsiveness and the advantage of citizen public library boards: Board members from diverse backgrounds are intimately connected to their neighbourhoods. Because they are so close to their communities, library boards have been able to respond effectively to citizen needs. The Toronto Public Library board has a community relations committee which meets with members of the community to discuss library issues, engage in public consultation and establish community advisory groups and liaison committees.

In response to community needs, the Toronto Public Library Board has developed a unique model of library service, with neighbourhood branches within walking distance of every resident. It has pioneered multicultural and literacy services, and continues its ground-breaking work by providing access to computers and information networks for those who cannot afford to purchase them.

Fund-raising and the advantage of citizen-populated boards: Because of their diverse experience and connections to the community, volunteer-based boards are in an excellent position to fund-raise for library services. In 1996, the Toronto Public Library raised over $500,000 for new computer centres in inner-city neighbourhoods and for more materials, including job search and literacy items, for its collection.

I attended recently at the opening of a Riverdale branch-Microsoft joint project with the libraries, and I can tell you that there was great celebration there of the notion of a library without walls, of the notion of a library that could reach the endless bookshelves of other collections around the world. I sensed that the fact that Microsoft was able to deal with an autonomous board in addition to the city representatives who were on hand was a strong feature of their willingness to donate such a sum of money and materials.

A province-wide public library network and the advantage of citizen boards: Library boards have a long history of working together to share resources across municipal boundaries. Consistent library governance across the province and a common set of values and goals shared by library boards and their members have supported this cooperation. Minister Mushinski is quoted again as saying:

"Our public libraries...have evolved from a disparate group of individual collections of books to an interconnected information network.

"The networks which connect libraries with other libraries and with information resources throughout the province, the country and the world are very important now and are going to become more and more important in the future."

Boards with citizen volunteers are able and willing to look beyond municipal boundaries. Reciprocal borrowing agreements in Metro are an outstanding example of libraries cooperating to provide seamless service to citizens. Boards also participate in the provincial electronic network to ensure equity of access throughout Ontario. Many libraries across Ontario look to large public libraries such as Toronto to lend them books which they are not able to provide to their users. This type of cooperation is built upon a network of boards that have the same composition, the same goals and the same underlying philosophy.

Bill 109 undermines the commonality among libraries across the province. Municipalities with only councillors or bureaucrats on their boards may be less inclined to look beyond municipal boundaries. They may feel less committed to equity of access to information across the province. The network we have spent years developing may be destroyed and would be hard to rebuild. We agree with the CUPE vision of libraries that can't talk to each other and that don't share information at all among different systems that was mentioned this morning.

On the second theme, we advocate free public library service. It keeps the connection. Bill 109 threatens free public library service. By moving legislation that protects the rights of the public to enter libraries and to continue to borrow print materials without charge from the act into a regulation, the government allows this service to be changed at any time without resort to Parliament. Permitting charges for electronic and audio-visual materials undermines the stated purposes of the act, which are to ensure public libraries continue to successfully provide for Ontario's information needs, to support Ontario's requirements for access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society, and to allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network.

1440

By limiting free access only to print materials, the regulations ignore the reality of our age of information technology. Information produced electronically should not be treated differently from that printed on paper. People should not have to pay to access information because it is in a non-print format.

Electronic information is not just an alternative format. We agree with the presentation this morning that described this as illogical, inconsistent and wrongheaded in principle. It is the only source of a vast amount of information. Some examples were asked for this morning. I would reference the Canadian Encyclopaedia, which is available only by electronic print format. I would also reference many magazine databases which we have now stopped buying hard copy of; we simply access the magazine database. Over 50% of reference information is now published only in electronic formats. The provincial government itself produces a large amount of information it intends only to offer through Web sites. I think you can appreciate as well, with reduced budgets for hard copy, that there is an increasing emphasis on the availability of certain types of materials only through electronic media.

People learn in many different ways, using different formats. Some library users have limited literacy skills or are not fluent in English. In Toronto, we estimate that as many as 28% of our constituents are of low literacy. They learn better using audio-visual formats. The Toronto Public Library's collection of self-help, education, training, children's and drama videos is a valuable source of information for many users. By the way, our librarians are busy organizing the Net right now, providing traditional library services in the context of electronic information.

Charges for audio-visual and electronic information create barriers to education and employment opportunities for those who have the least resources. Access must be free. Public libraries' traditional role has been to provide information for those who cannot buy it. Today, libraries often provide the only access to electronic information for those who cannot afford computers, access to networks or audio-visual materials.

In that Microsoft presentation I mentioned, which is one of three and which allows us to launch over 50 computers at three centres in Toronto, it was a point of our plan and a point of Microsoft's plan that those centres be launched in the disadvantaged communities for the very purpose of free access to our disadvantaged. It would seem silly to turn around and start charging those people for access. If libraries charge for electronic information, the disadvantaged will lose access to the global network and will be further disfranchised and disadvantaged in the job market, creating even greater disparity between those who have and those who have not.

We urge you to keep the connection. The public library system, with citizen participation, free access to libraries and solid accountability to municipal councils and taxpayers, has worked well for Toronto citizens for 114 years. As library board members, we urge you to keep the connection and assure citizens that public libraries, like formal education systems, have standard provincial requirements. For us, those critical requirements are a mandated majority of citizens on library boards and free access to information in whatever form it may take, whether print, audio-visual or electronic.

Passing Bill 109 without amendments means the destruction of the quality library system we have today and the loss of access to information and opportunities by those citizens who are most in need.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Goldsmith. Unfortunately, you've effectively exhausted all the allotted time, but I want to thank all of you for coming forward today and making your presentation to the committee.

OAKVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Oakville Public Library please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes today to make your presentation.

Mr Jack Shirley: We're here today representing the Oakville Public Library board. I'm Jack Shirley, board chairman. Accompanying me are John Barton, our vice-chair, and Eleanor James, who is library director and secretary of the board. Our board appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on the draft library legislation, Bill 109.

Our comments and advice are based upon our experiences in Oakville, where a mutually supportive working relationship exists between the town and the Oakville Public Library. Last September, Oakville town council prepared and forwarded a report to the Who Does What panel describing this local situation, which we know is not unique to our town. To quote from this report, enclosed as appendix A in today's presentation:

"The ratepayers of Oakville perceive the library as an integral part of the town of Oakville, and the two entities are intricately enmeshed.... The working relationship between the town of Oakville and the Oakville library board is exemplary.... This is a result of the individuals involved and the partnership that has been created over the years."

A key factor is frequent and open communication. The Public Libraries Act of 1984 has in no way acted as an impediment to local board accountability or the board's ability to establish a number of cost-sharing and value-added partnerships.

I am now going to call on John Barton to make today's presentation.

Mr John Barton: It's our belief that both Bill 109 and regulation 26/96 need revision before this draft legislation is approved and implemented. We have two concerns which I am going to highlight in our presentation. The first is on three items where we believe there is a particular need for greater clarity in the wording and interpretation of elements of the act. In the second part, we are going to urge that there needs to be greater consistency in the legislation with regard to the admirably stated purpose of public libraries in the draft legislation.

Let me turn first to the matter of clarity of wording and interpretation. There are three points we want to make about this. The first one concerns the description of the word "board" in the act, the second relates to the title of the chief executive officer of the library, and the third relates to the composition of the board.

We submit that in relation to the word "board," the legislation should clearly state that a public library shall be under the management and control of a board which is a corporation and therefore subject to the Corporations Act. In Bill 109 it says that "the library board is a corporation," section 5.1, but the fact that legal opinions currently vary in interpretation as to what that means demonstrates the need to clarify that wording before the bill becomes law.

Under the Corporations Act, a library board would be required to be composed of a minimum of three members; board members would hold accountability under the terms and conditions set out in the Corporations Act. This would add to the accountability given to board members via municipal bylaws. It would attract quality candidates to board vacancies due to the stature of the post held, the responsibilities and required expertise.

A board in name only, which is what the draft legislation now has, is insufficient clarity for the legislation. We believe that if no change is made in this, the legislation will impede the library board's ability to serve its community effectively and to achieve the desired quality of relationship between the library board and municipal council. Indeed, it may act as a barrier to attaining some of the objectives set out in the legislation.

It's to be noted that under the past Public Libraries Act, 1984, which of course is still in force, public libraries have acted in accordance with the Corporations Act. That's the first point.

The second relates to the description of the staff person who heads up the library. In the current act, that person is described as the chief executive officer. We believe that term should be retained and stated in the new act, clarifying, as we believe it does, the relationship between the chief officer, the library board and the municipal structure.

Third, you will not be surprised to hear after the other presentations today that in regard to the composition of the library board, we believe the legislation should require specifically, in words, a majority of private citizens on the public library board. We believe building that requirement into the legislation would prevent the possibility of developing a library board composed of municipal staff and managed simply as part of the municipal bureaucracy, to the exclusion of independent citizen input and ownership.

We submit that majority citizen representation would enhance the possibility of accomplishing the powers and duties of the board as stated in the draft legislation under Bill 109, section 10, particularly clauses (a), (b), (d) and (k), which we believe a majority citizen representation makes possible.

I want to just step aside from what's in print to make three comments on this. It seems from my experience, and I think our experience in the Oakville board, that private citizen members of the board, appointed by municipal councils, are able to give an extent of time and energy to the work of the library board that no town councillors are able to provide because of the enormous number of other responsibilities that they carry.

We, for example, have just completed a six-month public consultation process in Oakville entirely run by the members of the library board. We had six consultations: one with Friends of the Library, two public, one with youth, one with seniors and one with the Halton Anti-Poverty Coalition. This has taken a great deal of time and energy and it's given us some very important feedback on what people want in the future of library service for the community of Oakville. Town councillors simply haven't got time or energy to give to that kind of process.

1450

May I then move to our second major concern, which is the question of the consistency of purpose in all parts of the act. The stated purpose of the act is to support Ontarians' requirements for "access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society," allowing them to benefit from "access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network."

We submit that:

(1) The draft legislation abandons this purpose in section 14 when it places the authority for fees under the control of the Municipal Act.

(2) We believe the best way to ensure access is to retain the concept of fees within the act itself and not simply in the regulations, which can be easily changed.

(3) We are concerned, as are most boards that presented today, about the narrow emphasis on print to the exclusion of the other mediums such as electronically stored information, which we feel is entirely inconsistent with the spirit of the act, which is to promote access.

(4) The act, and not the regulations, should safeguard free access to all library information resources.

(5) The definition of core services needs to go beyond books to all information, regardless of their format.

Education and lifelong learning can no longer be sustained by reliance on print collections alone. More and more libraries purchase access to information resources which are resident elsewhere in the global environment. Safeguarding print as free does little for universal access, especially for people with lower incomes, who are hardest pressed to gain access to electronic information and to the computers that enable them to access it, which they need for school, for further education, for job hunting, for career change and for daily support.

In closing, we would stress that a failure to revise the draft legislation now, prior to enactment, would force libraries and municipalities to incur legal costs in order to interpret the meaning of unclear phrases in Bill 109, both now and possibly in the future, which is quite contrary to the government's intention to cut the costs of government for all of the citizens of Ontario.

I want to make one side comment in relation to the passionate brief we heard from the municipalities a few minutes ago. It's simply inconsistent with our experience that the town of Oakville does not have control of the budget of our library, line-by-line control. The town auditor audits all accounts. There's common purchasing of all supplies, services and contracts with the town and the region of Halton. Would the municipalities of Ontario wish to go further and carry the logic of their centralization argument to the extent that all education boards should be abolished and that those should also be taken in hand by the municipal councillors and indeed by the municipal administration?

Thank you for hearing us. We wish you well as you continue to meet with others in the library community and in your subsequent deliberations with your colleagues in the government.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Unfortunately, we only have about a minute and a half per caucus for questions, starting with Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. It's my sense from listening to some of the conversation that's floating out there, and consistent with some of what this government seems to be about, that we may end up, if we don't do such as what's happening in the Legislature today, with just such a scenario as you have described, except that it will be the provincial government running everything and municipal governments paying for it.

I appreciate you coming before us today and being so frank and focused in your presentation. What you presented is certainly consistent with what others have said to us, with a few obvious exceptions.

You talk about governance in your presentation and then you talk about the need for access. The third piece that others have presented is the question of provincial involvement in the delivery of this. What's your feeling on that?

Mr Shirley: The only involvement the province has at the present time is legislation and the household grant. The household grant, of course, is being phased out, so provincial involvement depends upon the legislation and this is what we're asking here, to clarify that legislation so the province is saying, "This is what should be done." The province is saying essentially, "We want public access, freedom of access," and we agree with that. We have no qualms in that whatsoever. I think these are the areas that the province would be involved in. They have not been involved in detailed administration of the libraries to date.

Mr Young: By any chance, did the town of Oakville have an opportunity to have input into this presentation before you came here today?

Mr Shirley: Yes. Essentially we appeared before a committee of the town.

Mr Young: Did the committee support it?

Mr Shirley: They have supported it totally.

Mr Young: I'd like to ask you a quick question, as a user, as a member. Actually, there's no membership but I do make extra contributions because I'm one of those people who forgets and brings the books back late. So I'm a major contributor, actually.

Mr Shirley: We'll check on you when we get back.

Mr Young: I think I'm even right now. I know there's a toy lending library section in Glen Abbey and I know you have user fees for photocopying, and certainly some people would view fines as a user fee, but I'm trying to understand where we getting into entertainment. For instance, I've got Ben Hur, Cabaret and To Kill a Mockingbird videotapes that I would otherwise be getting from a local video shop. I'm just wondering, the original mandate of public libraries, which was information and education, has gone into entertainment and is competing with local businesses, and isn't it appropriate to charge use fees for that perhaps?

Mr Shirley: Your question is very appropriate. We have been reviewing that and we're eliminating the entertainment section because we don't feel that we should be competing. Not totally, but for the most part, we're not going to have popular items. The toy library, for example, we have pulled that back and it doesn't exist in the various branches now. It's only in the central library.

Mr Barton: May I say that in the central library it is now a fee recovery service. It will pay its costs.

Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon and thank you very much for your presentation. I think what's interesting, and it is developing really as a theme, is that almost everyone is coming forward and saying there's a need and a value and that citizen-majority boards work very well, as you talk about your relationship. But I think even with the AMO presentation, what we really heard was that they basically felt they were being forced to take that position based on what was happening, rather than a dislike of boards themselves. He certainly wasn't disapproving of boards.

The one thing that I want to ask you about too, because it's interesting, is the old Corporations Act angle. I saw it earlier and I think it's an interesting one. I guess what we'd like to do probably is even check with the staff here. It is there in subsection 5(1), "A public library shall be under the management and control of a board, which is a corporation." So if we could get that clarified by the ministry itself, are they subject to the Corporations Act? If so, then you've got the minimum of three members on the board. I presume that is something that you feel obviously is a good idea, but I'm grateful that you were able to bring that forward because I think it's interesting.

Ms Kashul: I'll tell you that the Corporations Act does apply.

Mr Gravelle: It does apply?

Ms Kashul: It applies presently and the wording in the bill is the same, so that the Corporations Act will apply but it only applies to the extent where there is no inconsistency. So in the current --

Interjection.

Ms Kashul: And that's the wording of the Corporations Act itself, which applies to all corporations unless it is otherwise expressed in the act. For the purposes of the library board now, the minimum three members doesn't matter because the act itself sets out how many members there shall be on the library board currently. In the proposed bill it is left up to the town council. That would be an inconsistency with the Corporations Act.

Mr Gravelle: So the new one would supersede that?

Ms Kashul: The Corporations Act will not apply for a minimum number of members.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Kashul. Ladies and gentlemen, we've exceeded the allotted time. Thank you for coming forward to make your presentation today.

1500

EAST GWILLIMBURY PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Karen McLean please come forward. Good afternoon, Ms McLean. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Karen McLean: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I am chief librarian for the town of East Gwillimbury. First of all, I'd like to tell you that I did not bring a handout, so please don't think you have to find it.

East Gwillimbury is a rural community north of Aurora-Newmarket and south of Lake Simcoe. It's to the east of the Holland Marsh. It has a population of about 19,500, includes the villages of Sharon, Holland Landing, Mount Albert, Queensville and several small hamlets. I'm speaking here today on behalf of the board of the East Gwillimbury Public Library.

To begin with, I want to thank you for including a statement of purpose in the new act. It is a strong, positive statement that will help library boards, municipal councils and staff members maintain direction in the face of the changes that are to come.

The East Gwillimbury library board has four areas of concern with the proposed changes; two are with Bill 109. The first concern is the composition of library boards and the second is the need for a continued provincial presence in the libraries of Ontario. The third concern is with the amendments to regulation 26/96, which lists the services that libraries will provide free of charge. Our last concern is about future library funding. I'd like to look at these four in just a little more detail.

First of all, the composition of library boards: As it stands now, Bill 109 requires each municipality to pass a bylaw stating the size and composition of its library board. We urge you to establish within Bill 109 a requirement for citizen majorities on these boards and an arm's-length relationship with municipal council. You have heard this before, I think. This would ensure community involvement, without loss of budgetary control by municipal council.

Citizen boards have two major advantages: They act as a buffer between elected officials and special-interest groups, whether those special-interest groups are religious, political or otherwise, on such important issues as intellectual freedom. Please believe me, the issue of intellectual freedom is very important to public libraries and to public library boards. Citizen boards also raise money on behalf of the library. Councils do not raise funds; they collect taxes. It is the volunteers and the volunteer boards within our community that fund-raise.

We hope the provincial government will continue to play a strong role in the public libraries of Ontario when libraries become a municipal responsibility. Your commitment to a province-wide electronic network is one of these important roles, but for small and rural library systems, there are others. We look to the province for some financial support so that our libraries can hook up to that electronic network. We also look to the province to set guidelines and minimum standards of service for public libraries, and we look to the province to provide group training and consulting for our electronic future.

Small libraries cannot afford to hire systems people to look after the computers in their libraries; in fact it's no longer even practical to do that. Everyone who works in libraries today must constantly improve their computer skills with both hardware and software. We no longer use computers occasionally or for some things; they are now part of the job and we must use them to do our job.

Currently the province, through the Ontario library system, provides that training. It is not provided library by library but rather on a group basis. They set up training events and days and places, and staff from different libraries come together for that training. This training must continue even if the libraries need to pay more than they do now for each of the workshops.

These factors, then, are important, and just to repeat them, we look to the province for financial support so that we can link into the electronic network, we look to the province for guidelines and minimum standards of service and we look to the province for this group training and consulting that we need. All of these are important factors, and they are in danger of being lost in small and rural libraries in the transition from provincial to municipal control.

Now the list of free services. The present amendment to Ontario regulation 26/96 lists those library services for which the municipality cannot charge under the new act. We urge you to add to this list. As it stands now, the amendment refers to print materials only. Please add free access to electronic information and free basic assistance for those who want to use that electronic information.

In its statement of purpose in Bill 109, the government recognizes the importance of information in people's lives today and the importance of a provincial information network. Providing free access to the information of the future, electronic information, and providing free help for those who want to use it are consistent with that purpose. In this age of computers and electronic information, we cannot say that only print materials are free.

The last concern of the East Gwillimbury library board is about funding. The provincial government has announced plans to phase out direct grants to public libraries, with the stated assumption that municipalities will fund the difference because they are no longer responsible for funding education. There is no guarantee that municipalities will do so. Indeed, in my own municipality, the present council has made it clear that it will not replace lost conditional grants.

We urge the provincial government to make clear, unambiguous statements of its intent in this matter. Town councils and library boards need clear information on the new balance, the new financial give and take between the province and the municipality so that we can begin to work on our budgets for 1998 and beyond.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for listening to the library community in the past. Thank you for your strong statement of purpose for public libraries in Bill 109. Thank you too for your vision of an electronic network in the future of Ontario. Lastly, thank you for your attention to our concerns this afternoon.

1510

Mrs Munro: May I first of all congratulate you on the presentation you've given here today. Certainly as someone I represent I am very proud to add my congratulations to the presentation you've made. I think you've done a really good job of identifying some of those critical issues. I'd just like to come back to one in particular, given the length of time we have available.

When you talk about the need to expand that definition of materials that are available, and as we had someone earlier describe, those aren't free, obviously, they're the taxpayers'. But when we look at that presentation we had earlier today about the virtual library and so forth, is there a point at which you would argue that there is a legitimacy here for recognition of the service and therefore the need for a fee?

I'm asking this from the standpoint that, to me, there's a difference between the child who comes in from grade 3 who has got a project and, yes, wants to have a question answered, but then when you look at the presentation that talked about the home office kind of thing, that gives us a sense of this incredible range. I'm just wondering if you have a view as to where the taxpayers' responsibility lies in this huge range.

Ms McLean: I have a personal view. I can't say that it's one that is shared by my library board because they have not discussed it in depth. But I think part of the problem lies in the fact that we are defining services by types of material, where I would prefer to say, what is the purpose of our library? Who are the clients we want to reach, most important, and then rank them.

If we say that it's most important to reach children in school, whether it's preschool or elementary grades, then we provide all services to them free. If we say that it's much less important to provide free services for business and that they are making money therefore they can pay, then I think that's a distinction we should make, and they should pay for the services whether they are print or electronic. But that's the basis on which I think we should make the decision, personally, not on the basis of whether the material is in print or electronic.

Unfortunately, that kind of determination is much harder to make. I recognize that. I think most of us do. But that's why I think it's important to establish goals and decide who our clients are and what are core services. In libraries we like to talk about core services, the ones that are most essential in our community, and then charge for the ones that aren't core, that aren't the most important.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much for your presentation, in which you did make clear that there has been some, I guess, public word from your council that in terms of money that's lost, in terms of provincial funds, they will not be replaced. That's an accurate representation of what you said?

Ms McLean: That's correct.

Mr Gravelle: Obviously that's fairly dramatic, because it's hard to imagine -- well, I guess it isn't hard to imagine, you could tell us what that will mean in terms of reduced service. But I'm just trying to tie it into the whole concept of citizen majority boards. Do you feel that if you have a majority of citizens in terms of maintaining library boards, that would help to be able to work with councils, or do you think there is any valuable connection between the two?

Ms McLean: I think there is some benefit there. Yes, they do have some influence and they do make presentations to council, both formally and informally. But I think hand in hand with that there is also their ability to fund-raise, their ability to go out into the community and get the community interested in the library. In our community -- I can't speak for larger communities but in smaller communities -- I don't know that the citizen boards would influence the funding as much as they would influence freedom of information, and that is essential.

Mr Gravelle: Yes, that's crucial for you, but you're right. You made the point very well in terms of they're the volunteers and they have a precise involvement. They're the ones who go out and do the fund-raising in a very different way, and if you remove them, you aren't going to have the committed fund-raisers, because they don't have a significant role to play.

Ms McLean: And I'm in a community that has a very low percentage of business in it, a low tax base. It's mainly residential -- 92% residential and 8% industrial -- so that ability to go out and fund-raise is extremely important.

Mr Gravelle: You also made the point about and thanked the ministry for the preamble to the bill. My point would be that the preamble is very nice and important, but if certain things are changed, the preamble won't have any real meaning.

Ms McLean: Yes, that's very correct.

Mr Martin: I just caught the end of your presentation and I apologize. But it seems to me from my conversation with my Liberal colleague that you were supportive of the trend that is beginning to develop here, which is a concern about the question of citizen participation on boards and a majority, concern about access to information in various mediums, not just the written, and concern about a provincial participation.

You very adequately, in the pieces I heard, talked a bit about the impact on your smaller rural library system, because of the limited tax base, of the reduction of provincial contribution. I know in my community, up to this point, I think we've lost about $180,000. By the time it's all done, there'll be a quarter of a million dollars out of the library system in Sault Ste Marie, and that's going to be difficult to replace, particularly if they're forced to fund-raise.

If all three of those seemingly very important fundamental stool legs disappear, what happens then?

Ms McLean: I'm concerned about the consistency of library service throughout the province. I think there are going to be pockets of poor service, there are going to be pockets of excellent service. But I'm concerned that it's going to be very uneven and that in order to meet the budget requirements, libraries are going to close, they're going to drop such services as interlibrary loan and other things that in a large centre people will take for granted. They will no longer exist in a smaller community, and there will be nothing to replace them.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward to make your presentation today.

RON CHOPOWICK

The Chair: Would Ron Chopowick please come forward. Welcome, Mr Chopowick, to the committee. Go ahead.

Mr Ron Chopowick: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Ron Chopowick, citizen member of the City of Scarborough library board. I'm representing myself. I should note that I was nominated to the board by the Metropolitan Separate School Board of Toronto, and over the last three years I've developed some experience that I thought I could share.

As an introduction, I should note that Bill 109 proposes that library services be managed and funded at the local level. I will begin by stating that I endorse the general intent of this act, but I do have two reservations, personal ones. My comments will deal with the positive attributes of the act, as I see them, in general. I'm not going to speak on specifics. Then my rationale regarding reservations and recommendations will follow.

My first comments deal with governance, accountability and funding. I lump them all together. I see the act as making sense out of current operational realities. As a taxpayer, I believe that funding should be obtained from and control applied closest to the level at which library services are being provided. I believe that members of communities will financially support services like libraries because they recognize them as being of benefit, either directly or indirectly. The time has come to stop passing public moneys targeted for local programs among various levels of bureaucracy and apply them directly, and I applaud the current government for its initiatives in this area.

My municipality, in my view, has in fact controlled overall budgets and even the sequencing of establishing library facilities, leaving line budget items to the discretion of the board, as it should. My perception is that at budget time especially the board has operated as a quasi-department of the city of Scarborough. This is logical, I think, because the city provides approximately 91% of the board's annual operating budget, with the province providing about 5.5% and other revenue sources, such as fines, the remainder. I'm reminded of the fact that when it was time to spend money for an expensive new computer system, the city of Scarborough provided an interest-free loan to help us do that.

In light of current disentanglement initiatives and rationalization of roles of different levels of government, I do not see the replacement of the provincial grant as being a significant problem in Scarborough. I realize, however, that this will not be the only increased demand on the local tax base. My calculations indicate that with about 183,000 households, give or take a few hundred, in just Scarborough alone, the municipal funding increase per dwelling unit per year to replace the current provincial grant will be between five and six dollars. These moneys should be freed up in communities as a result of downward adjustments in provincial income tax rates. I'm still hoping to get the effect of that, but I live in hope, and I anticipate that new, extraordinary information formats presented by libraries will require a user-pays policy. You're already discussing that. As well, my sense is the new city of Toronto, with its broader and larger tax base and its economies of scale will have little trouble in making up for previous provincial grants to libraries.

With regard to the user-pays point that I made, I believe that when you have special sources of information being used by a select few, those people should pay for that. We have general print information, and that should be free, but you can't fully subsidize a few people.

1520

The act, as I see it, should encourage more integration of libraries as subfunctions of their municipalities. This in turn should lead to rationalization of resources, both human and physical. I can think of examples in Scarborough, such as in physical resources maintenance-repair. We have a department in the library board, and just across the yard the city of Scarborough has a department that takes care of that.

Over time, this rationalization should result in enhanced cost-effectiveness of departments operating in a staff function outside, and I stress outside, the front-line services in the libraries themselves. I would not like to see and I would find it very difficult to accept that the funding and the support for the libraries themselves would be affected by these changes.

I anticipate that the process of working through the new structure will not be easy -- change is never easy -- and much strategic planning will be required. That's going to be difficult too. People like to think of the immediate problem rather than, "Where are we going to be in a couple years and how are we going to get there?"

This brings me to my first reservation. Over the years, a valuable reservoir of knowledge and interest with respect to libraries has been built up in communities. In order to tap into this and also recognize and support unique community needs, I recommend that the new city of Toronto allow for community councils to be involved in deciding membership on and appointments to the new public library board. I hope the new city of Toronto considers this strategy as a means of engaging citizen volunteers and interest groups on its library board.

The second point I'd like to deal with is board representation. The act stipulates that library boards will be in place and municipalities that fund library operations will decide on the nature of board membership. There appears to me to be silence on the representation rates of citizen volunteers.

My experience as a citizen volunteer in Scarborough has always been most positive. My municipality has always sought and supported citizen participation, and I'm happy to report that I have a plaque on my wall that honours my contribution to the city of Scarborough. However, this may not be a provincial norm.

In my experience, citizens are less likely than municipal councillors to be influenced by purely political considerations. I hasten to add that this is not to say that the practice of politics is not important. But when push comes to shove and the ultimate decision has to be made, the needs of libraries to fulfil their critical and essential roles in communities must be paramount. I'm sure you've heard a lot about literacy rates and information dissemination. Literacy rates especially are a very important criterion for designating whether communities are well developed or not.

There is the expectation that municipalities will continue citizen board membership. However, we will be navigating uncharted waters, so a marker such as the statement "Citizens will continue to form majority membership on a board" will serve to provide direction and supports the notion of majority citizen participation. If this is an agreed principle, it should be enshrined in writing.

I hasten to add that since it's the ratepayers who provide the major funds for programs and initiatives to all levels of government and who use the programs, it is the ratepayers who should have a greater ongoing voice regarding the nature of expenditures and operation of programs. While it may be true that, compared to other levels of government, local councils are in the best position to determine what's best for their communities, I think it's even more true that the consumers of government services know what's best for themselves. As exhibited recently, too often, elected officials are unaccountable for financial decision-making, except at election time. I want to make it clear I'm thinking more of BC right now than anything in Ontario.

Finally, municipalities are being given the power to decide on rules for reimbursement of board member expenses. I would be more comfortable with the act stating there should be an annual honorarium of about $2,000 paid to citizen members of library boards. This will serve to formalize a member's relationship to a board, while providing reasonable compensation.

In this light, I recommend that the act should stipulate that citizen members will form majority membership on library boards and members will be paid a reasonable honorarium.

Mr Chairman, that's my presentation. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about two minutes per caucus for questions.

Mr Gravelle: Mr Chopowick, thank you very much for your presentation. Are you presently a citizen member of the board?

Mr Chopowick: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: What is the relationship like between council and the library board right now in Scarborough? How would you describe it?

Mr Chopowick: I think it's a very good, effective working relationship. Citizen members of the board sometimes find they're not privy to all the information, and this is where the art of politics is a reality, but I think we have an effective, harmonious relationship. Sometimes we get messages that are difficult to deal with because, as I say, we don't have the big picture.

Mr Gravelle: But the bottom line is that you have to relate to the budget realities, as they are, as part of your board duties, obviously.

Mr Chopowick: Yes. As I said, over 90% of the budget comes from the council, from the municipality.

Mr Gravelle: So your feeling would be that a majority citizen membership -- it certainly is a theme that is developing among most of the presenters. Regardless of the level they support or don't support the bill, that seems to be a common concern, that it makes sense to maintain citizen majority involvement and that it shouldn't seem threatening to the municipal councils, because they'll be sensitive to the needs of the municipalities.

Mr Chopowick: Since we vote for them in the first place, we should be able to coexist and get along. I think the phrase is, "He who pays the piper calls the tune." I feel we should have the majority voice.

Mr Gravelle: Fair enough. Thank you.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. I appreciate your strong position on the question of majority membership on library boards. That's clear. You make some comment as well on the question of access to information; you suggest that there are some people we just can't afford to subsidize in terms of their access. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a constituent when we were looking at different issues of equity when we were in government a few years ago. They made the interesting comment on the phone: "You can't give everybody their human rights. It's just too expensive."

Mr Chopowick: I would say the greatest good for the greatest number of people is what we have to do with our tax dollars.

Mr Martin: Would you agree with those who have come before us who say that accessibility is of primary importance in the library system, and that as we get into the new age of computers etc it would be counterproductive to limit free access to the written or printed word?

Mr Chopowick: My sense is that access to printed information will continue to be free. My position is that where we have to spend large sums of money on new modes of providing or accessing information, people who want to use that will probably have to pay. We just don't have the tax base to support everything, so we'll have to make decisions. Books, because of their universality, obviously, as it is currently stated, will have to be provided as they are now, free of charge, but as you get into CD-ROMs, specialty items, I think libraries are going to have to look at charges.

Mr Stewart: I like the words "no cost to the users" rather than "free."

Mr Chopowick: The taxpayer always pays. I stand corrected.

Mr Stewart: No problem. The last three or four presenters we've heard are very concerned, and you've echoed the same thing, that you would like it mandated that there be citizens appointed to the boards and it should be included in the act. What this government is trying to do is get out of regulation, get out of red tape, get out of structured process, because what may be applicable in Toronto or in Thunder Bay may not be applicable in Keene or Lanark or whatever.

My concern is that if it's put into the act, all of a sudden it takes away flexibility. Sometimes, to mandate something that is consistent across the province can maybe affect that program itself. Would you care to comment on that?

1530

Mr Chopowick: I hear where you're coming from. With due respect, I strongly disagree. I think the municipalities will have all the flexibility in the world. All they have to do is make sure that citizens, who are paying the taxes and who are consuming the services, are the majority representatives. Beyond that, there will be flexibility.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate that. If the Who Does What program goes into effect, I can assure you that municipalities will not want to set up another bureaucracy to run libraries. They will rely very heavily on volunteers, on volunteer boards etc, because they cannot afford, as indeed this level of government cannot afford, to add more bureaucracy. I would think that might relieve some of your concerns.

The other thing I would like to ask you, though, regarding the --

The Chair: Mr Stewart, you're going to have to follow him out if you want to ask him another thing, because we're beyond the time. I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for coming forward today and making a presentation.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO REFERENCE LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Dr Maureen Rudzik please come forward? Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Dr Maureen Rudzik: Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. I'm Dr Maureen Rudzik, chairman of the board of the Metro Toronto Reference Library. To my left is Frances Schwenger, who is the CEO. I'm very pleased to be able to speak to you today. I'm speaking on behalf of one library only, and that is the Metro Toronto Reference Library.

The Who Does What Crombie submission on public libraries described the Ontario system as "the best public library system in the world." However, I'm fearful that Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, as it is now written, will drastically change services across Ontario and the best system in the world could be in danger of becoming a memory of the golden age of library services in Ontario.

Before speaking to the bill itself, I would like to give you a snapshot of the Metro Toronto Reference Library, because perhaps you're not aware of what we offer. We are very proud that this is considered to be a world-class public library facility. Our services and our architecture are emulated in countries and cities as disperse as Gütersloh in Germany; Copenhagen, Denmark; Perth, Australia; and of course North York, Ontario.

The public Toronto reference library's services and resources differ from other public libraries. We're a reference library; we're not a lending library. I think it would help you if you would consider us as an information resource centre. I think that's the best way to think of us. We differ in the following ways from public libraries:

(1) In our focus as an information provider. This is based on the in-depth expertise of our subject specialists as well as our extensive and comprehensive collections. MTRL has over 50 subject experts in fields as diverse as consumer health, performing arts and business. Some of our collections support scholarly research; for instance, history and the humanities. Our Sherlock Holmes collection draws people from all around the world. No other public library has developed, or can afford to develop in this day, expertise and collections of this depth and scope.

(2) In our provision of electronic access. We are described as "among the world's most technically advanced public reference facilities." We provide user-friendly access to local, remote and Internet databases, and I'd like to mention that we have 92 terminals that are called worldview terminals that are award-winning electronic terminals. We are leaders in applying our subject expertise to organize the Internet. Again, you may have seen a Globe and Mail article recently which describes this.

(3) In our varied customer base. We serve professionals, business people, researchers, artists, performers and students, and that is both high school and post-secondary students.

(4) In our support of Metropolitan Toronto's multi-ethnic population. We hold thousands of items in languages other than English and French. No other single library system meets the needs of the region's multi-ethnic communities.

(5) In our publication program. This includes many heavily used and highly respected regional products. Only the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library has the staff expertise and appropriate computer systems to generate these publications.

(6) In our Consumer Health Information Service. CHIS, as it's called, now serves residents across Ontario. It was the first service of its kind in Canada and it's now being emulated in Hawaii, PEI and New York City, just to name a few locations. Continued funding from the Ministry of Health confirms the Metro Toronto Reference Library's ability to deliver innovative services to a user community which is broad and geographically dispersed.

(7) In our early recognition that libraries are positioned to market enhanced information services for fees. Our fee-for-service operation, called IntelliSearch, is proving that large and small businesses will pay for their research.

(8) In our role in Metropolitan Toronto as the hub of provincial networking. The recently announced Network 2000 project acknowledges the library is a point of presence for Ontario. You have just seen the Avita presentation of the announcement of this. It's a wonderful and exciting network.

(9) In our support for the education system. Approximately 700,000 -- and I'd like to quote that figure at you again for emphasis: 700,000 -- a year of our users are high school, college or university students. High school students from across southern Ontario converge on our facility because we have the in-depth resources which OAC students need.

I hope that this gives you some flavour of the unique facility at 789 Yonge Street. Most of our services and collections are not duplicated in other public libraries either in Metro or in Ontario. Over the years, the Metropolitan Toronto Library board has ensured that public funds for its operations have not been spent to duplicate services and collections provided by local municipal library boards. The board continues to seek ways in which the library's unique services can be made more widely available to public libraries throughout Ontario.

This backgrounder on the Metro Toronto Reference Library also puts into context the recommendations approved by the Metropolitan Toronto Library board regarding Bill 109. These recommendations are necessarily coloured by the impact which the passage of Bill 103 will have on the Metropolitan Toronto Library board and on the six local library systems within Metropolitan Toronto. We are aware that the Metropolitan Toronto Library board could become part of an integrated library system. This is the crux of the matter.

Therefore the board seeks to ensure that the reference library will continue to be a special status institution. It must continue to enjoy status both as the upper tier of information provider in Metropolitan Toronto and as a special library service provider to the province. This will ensure that the Metro Toronto Reference Library will be able to make significant contributions to the emerging provincial library network and the content that will be available, we hope, to all Ontarians.

The recommendations that the board has asked me to pass on to you to Bill 109:

First, and most important, the Metro Toronto Library board is concerned to maintain its special status as contained in the Public Libraries Act, 1984, subsection 40(3). That states, "The Metropolitan Toronto library board, as continued by subsection 184(1) of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, shall be deemed to be a special library service board and may provide library resources and services to the Ontario library community."

1540

Because the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act will be repealed by Bill 103, this clause, and I would like to point this out, will be rendered meaningless even though the clause itself remains in the Public Libraries Act. The board also wishes to ensure that there will be continued funding from the province to support its provincial role. Therefore, the board recommends that the clause be changed to read:

"The Metro Toronto Library board, and any successor board" -- because we do not know what Bill 103 will bring -- "shall be deemed to be a special library service board and may provide resources and services to the Ontario library community and these resources and services will be funded by the province of Ontario."

Second, the board recommends that Bill 109 be amended to require that suitably qualified citizen representatives constitute a majority of the members of library boards. You keep hearing this, I'm sure. Also it is recommended that the bill specify no fewer than six board meetings a year to be held, because Bill 109 does not specify a minimum number of meetings, and that these meetings of course should be public. That goes without saying.

This amendment will continue the tradition by which citizen volunteers have contributed their time and talents to library boards. It will help to ensure that the important democratic principle of intellectual freedom is preserved. Citizen representatives will continue to bring a sense of community to library boards. The requirement to hold at least six board meetings a year will ensure that library business is not overlooked in a busy municipal environment.

A third recommendation is that Bill 109, section 14, fees, and regulation to amend Ontario regulation 26/96 made under the Municipal Act, be changed to permit the introduction of annual membership fees and to prohibit fees which limit access to information depending on its format. What you are proposing is fees by format. The introduction of any fees, the board recognizes, will create a barrier, will create haves and have-nots where the information is concerned. We are not a lending library, therefore we do not have fines, and we think that's where the majority of the income of lending libraries is generated.

I would like to quote: "Research has shown that the most cost-effective user fee in public libraries is an across-the-board membership fee." The most cost-efficient user fee, and perhaps the only fee that can make a significant difference to a library's bottom line, is an annual membership fee. The proposed amendments prohibit annual membership fees. However, the province of Alberta does allow annual fees. As well, both the Calgary and Edmonton public libraries each realize revenues of approximately $750,000 from this source. In today's fiscally stringent environment libraries must have the option to maximize their fee revenues.

A further concern is that while access to print collections would be free, charges for access to online information would be allowed. In the age of information, when more and more information is only available online, it is vital that all citizens have equal access to information they need regardless of its format. I'd like to point out to you that about 40% of medical and legal journals, probably because they come from a very well heeled profession, are only available in electronic form, so you are really inviting a penalty to access that information.

The board's fourth recommendation is that Bill 109 acknowledge that public libraries, especially large public libraries, require qualified staff to manage and to provide services. The sophisticated collections and electronic services of today's large public library systems require staff who understand the business of managing and providing information services. The language in Bill 109 as it relates to library staffing is very ill defined. For example, an inexperienced library board facing budget exigencies might well appoint or contract out services to unqualified sources.

The board's final recommendation is that Bill 109 include language which recognizes the shared responsibilities and costs of providing library services to students. The Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library is bearing much of the brunt of the board of education cutbacks. Fully 45%, and I'll emphasize again, that's 700,000 students, of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library's use is by students. School libraries are open limited hours, teacher-librarians are being replaced with untrained staff and school collection budgets are shrinking.

It is timely to acknowledge the unofficial partnership and responsibility which library boards and boards of education share in the provision of resource materials for students. We believe some integration between the reference library and the Metropolitan Toronto school system will provide a better and more efficient use of assets that should lead to lower costs, while continuing to serve the student community.

To conclude, the Metropolitan Toronto library board has presented you with its concerns regarding Bill 109. They are similar to the concerns of many other library boards. However, the overriding concern of my board is to ensure that, through legislation, the unique services and collections of the reference library continue to remain accessible to the citizens of the province.

If it is not recognized in the new legislation, the Metropolitan Toronto library board is in danger of losing its special status in the province and in Metro. The passage of Bill 103, which will repeal the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, will further erode the special status which recognizes this library's unique collections and services. By providing joint status, as both a local and provincial resource, the provincial government maximizes the strengths of a prominent public institution for the benefit of all Ontarians and ensures us a pivotal role in Network 2000. I thank you for this opportunity to speak to you and I wish you well in your deliberations.

The Chair: You've effectively exhausted all the allotted time. I want to thank you both for coming forward today and making your presentation.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES:
ONTARIO MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES COORDINATING COMMITTEE
LIBRARY WORKERS COMMITTEE

The Chair: Would members from the CUPE locals please come forward. Ma'am, I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to take the button off. You can't have buttons with slogans on them. Thank you very much. If you could introduce yourselves before each of you speaks, maybe that would be the best way to go about it.

Mr Steve Burdick: I'll let my sisters introduce themselves. My name is Steve Burdick and I'm the president of the CUPE library local of the Metro reference library. Because of the brevity of time, I'm simply going to read you a list of recommendations which appear on the very last page of the submission my local submitted today regarding this bill. I should add that all but the first two of these recommendations have been approved by the library workers committee in this province, and that committee has also submitted a brief on this bill.

The recommendations are as follows:

(1) That the present Public Libraries Act be amended to provide for the continued existence of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library as a special services library board providing an in-depth or second-tier reference service. Our brief explains this in much greater detail, but I would certainly point you in the direction of the remarks that the chair of that board has just made.

(2) That the present city of Toronto Act also be amended to provide for the continued existence of that library as a second-tier reference service.

The remaining recommendations are of a provincial nature:

(3) That the province facilitate transinstitutional library services, provided without fees and developed provincially through consultations with the library community;

(4) That the province eliminate user fees, and especially those based on format distinctions;

(5) That the provincial operating grants to library boards be restored and that the current statutory provisions be maintained;

(6) That the municipalities in general, and in the Toronto area in particular, be required as a minimum to maintain funding for library services at current levels, either as absolute amounts or percentages of their total operational costs, whichever is greater;

(7) That the boards and municipalities be discouraged from outsourcing their services;

(8) That adequate funding for the capital costs of libraries be ensured and that no actions be taken that run counter to the provision of their adequate capital funding. Parenthetically, I note on that that we are actually in very solid agreement with AMO, which I think is a pleasure for all of us in this room.

1550

(9) That the province continue to support the existence of effectively independent library boards and that dissolution or devolvement be done only on the basis of consultations, with all the affected parties in agreement.

(10) That the government (a) review and amend the qualifications for sitting on a board, including providing for (i) community representativeness; (ii) worker representation; (iii) a knowledge of library services; (iv) a knowledge of the community; and (b) develop a mechanism to ensure accountability -- that's on the part of the board.

(11) That every municipality or county, or whatever appropriate jurisdiction, provide as a non-severable service a public library or public library system, and that similar provisions should appear in the Municipal Act and any other related legislation.

As I said, the two longer briefs go into all of this in much greater detail specific to the Metro library. The appendices provide a good deal of information. I would now like to refer to Janet Walker, please.

Ms Janet Walker: Hello. I'm Janet Walker and I'm president of the Toronto Public Library Workers. I'm not going to go into the similar details that my colleague has just mentioned. What we'd like to focus on instead is the undervaluing and loss of library work that we believe is implied in Bill 109. This is work that has traditionally been done by highly trained women, whose tangible and profoundly meaningful services directly affect the library community.

Our community consists not just of library boards and their many employees, but the many millions of men, women and children of all ages and ethnicities who use the public library system in Ontario. It encompasses both the rich and the poor, the literate and the illiterate, successful businessmen and the unemployed, seniors and newborns -- the list is massive.

As women we have been the traditional caregivers of this community. Our library workers throughout the province are dedicated to being keepers of this public trust. This role demands not only our dedication, but extensive training and education. I would submit that both these points are illustrated by the fact that in North America 80% of master of library science graduates are women, 90% of library technician graduates are women and 90% of all other library workers are women.

That also includes CEOs, and that is something that has been of concern in that Bill 109 removes the designation of chief executive officer, which, on the surface, might seem like an innocuous thing but it is an equity issue. This is one of the few realms in which women have been allowed not to hit a ceiling. They've actually gone through.

Ours is a skilled and demanding job. Much is asked of us in giving the library community the service it needs and expects. We must be able to train all the members of the library community to use and master the new technologies. I would like to ask, in that context, that the committee think seriously about allowing for the privatization of these services. Our communities, the municipalities, the province have invested a lot of money in building up this group of women, this group of workers, to provide these services.

I'll just say a brief word about volunteers. We work well with many who already contribute to libraries in significant ways. Those volunteers are the library board members and the members of Friends of Libraries, but to suggest that these services that we provide should be given out to volunteers denigrates the work and the skill and would significantly reduce the library services to the communities.

I'll conclude on that note and pass it over to my colleague.

Ms Thea Adams: My name is Thea Adams and I'm president of CUPE Local 1877, which represents the Scarborough Public Library Workers. Our union is in agreement with everything that has been said prior. Just to shorten things, we would like to speak on two issues.

The first point is the fact that there was no meaningful consultation with the library workers. Although the minister did go around and talk to members of library boards, CEOs, the people who are on the front line, who face the public day in and day out and know what their needs are, were not consulted when you were drafting this legislation. Had we been involved, maybe we wouldn't all be here and this bill would have taken a different direction.

The other concern we have is another one that has been spoken about, and that's the makeup of the library boards. The lack of guarantee for citizen membership is not acceptable. Libraries are not only financial; they are also things such as circulating policies, censorship issues, user fees, free access for services. The library board must be kept at an arm's length from the elected officials who can be influenced by special interest groups who may have other motives.

We feel it is a conflict of interest. The way you have set the legislation up a library board could be a member of one councillor. There are too many vital issues as we go into the 21st century and the direction that libraries are going to be taking to be left in the hands of one person or just a few in the community. Especially if Bill 103 goes through, you're looking at one or two people. We urge you to look at the membership of the library boards and in fact guarantee that there is citizen membership on these boards.

The other fact is that especially in Metro we have a very diverse community and the library board members represent all of these communities so that they can be heard. I'll pass it on.

Ms Christina Duckworth-Pilkington: I'm Christina Duckworth-Pilkington, president of CUPE 771, the North York Public Library Workers, and I want to address our concerns about funding. We're very concerned about the removal of the province from the funding of the libraries. We think this not only costs us financially but sends a message that libraries aren't a prime concern of the province any more. We are concerned that the councils will take the message to heart.

We in Metro not only are going to come under pressure that way; we can't ignore the effects that Bill 103 might have. We were watching the filibuster closely and indeed were supporting it. We hope something good will come out of it for libraries. We think it's going to be tough on us in a large community to maintain our funding where we're now going to be in direct competition with fire and sewers and ambulance services, and we think in a small community it's going to be absolutely devastating. The Indian band libraries, for example, have no funding other than what the province gives them. If designated funding is gone from them, they won't have libraries.

We're also concerned about user fees. We feel that the reduction in funding is going to force the boards into user fees more than they are now. That's another message that the province doesn't care about equal access to all for public library services. Yes, it seems like a frill to say that they can now charge user fees for borrowing CDs and audiotapes and videos and, more alarmingly, the CD-ROMs. These are the books that have gone on to computer. Right now in my own very small library, I no longer have a print version of Books in Print or even Omni magazine. This is a science journal and it's no longer available except in electronic form. We are very concerned that the print medium that they can't make money off will be neglected for things like -- we'll go toe to toe with the video stores. Videos circulate amazingly. It'll be a great moneymaker. The boards are going to be forced to concentrate on formats that bring cash in, to the detriment of things that are more valuable.

We're concerned about the services that are going to be charged for. We're concerned that you'll have to pay to reserve a book. Electronic technology makes it possible for us to charge for telephone requests for information. It makes it possible to charge for research done from home computers or from school computers. You can buy a little card and you'll have to type your card number in before you get anything. I don't say they've done it yet, but it's one of the things that's now possible to do. This means that people without the money aren't going to be able to afford a lot of services that they can get now. User fees will create two tiers of society: those who can afford information and those who can't. I'm urging that the formats not be distinguished, that all library material continue to be accessible.

1600

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much. You've clearly covered a number of important areas, and I think it's important. I realize you've pooled your time together here in order to get on, so I appreciate it, but I think in that we've got this opportunity I wouldn't mind talking very quickly to Ms Walker about the whole question of the value of work and also the stresses and some of the workplace injuries that are taking place. I don't think that's something people are terribly aware of. If you could just tell us a little bit more about that, what kind of workplace situations are we talking about in terms of injuries, and some of the stress, just the added stress, because it was helpful even getting a better understanding of all the skills you need to do your job. I think it would be good for all the committee members to hear that.

Ms Walker: As the Toronto Public Library board chair mentioned earlier, between 1991 and now if you've got a 51% increase in circulation and you've got the number of staff going down, it doesn't take an Einstein to understand that the staff are going to be injured. What our experience has been is that we've suffered a 38.2% injury rate of muscular-skeletal disorders, and these are in the nature of overuse injuries. It's just a simple fact: If you use it too often in the same position for too much time, it gets hurt. These are the sort of injuries you can't see when you look at someone, that they have a degenerated disc, tendinitis and carpal tunnel, and that's because our public, bless them, are in so often -- they need us, they need the resources, they need the staff -- and we're literally wearing down to the bone and we need the funding.

The Chair: Thank you all for coming forward and making your presentation.

FRIENDS OF THE SOUTH DUMFRIES PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Geoffrey Snow please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Snow. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Geoffrey Snow: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman and honourable members. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. I should point out that I'm here today to give you the view from RR 1. I'm here as a representative of Friends of the South Dumfries Public Library. I don't represent the library. I do not represent the library board. I represent the people who use the library in South Dumfries.

When our Friends group first got wind of the proposed changes to the libraries act, I think the one measure that caused the most consternation was the gradual phasing out of provincial operating grants. We had been warned to expect cuts for some time, we could see the writing on the wall, and that's why we formed the Friends of the Library group, so we could raise money within the community to partially offset the cuts that were coming.

Make no mistake: We're not here today to plead for a doctor's note to excuse us from budget-cutting. We recognize that cost-cutting is a political, if not an economic, necessity. If we have to hold bake sales and car washes to help out the library, we'll do it, but at the same time we would prefer to see the province maintain some presence in the public library system.

In the opinion of the people we consulted, the withdrawal of provincial funding could compromise the interlibrary loan program. I'm sure other presenters today or possibly on other days will outline the reasons for concern about cutting provincial grants to the interlibrary loan program. What I want to do today is just to stress to you how extremely important this program is for those of us who live in rural communities.

If you look at the map, you'll see that South Dumfries is halfway between Brantford and Cambridge. You might not think it's a terribly isolated community, but eight miles on city streets and eight miles on snowy county roads are entirely different distances. Within our two villages, there are no book stores, there are no schools beyond the elementary level, so if we want information we have to go to the world outside to get it. Interlibrary loan provides us one way of doing this.

When I told people I would be appearing here, it seemed everybody had a story to tell me about material they'd gotten through interlibrary loan, and all of them seemed profoundly grateful for the existence of this service. Interlibrary loan allows those of us in rural communities to participate in the culture of the province on the same footing as those of you who live in larger centres.

We have a very varied population in our township: There are people who've been there since the first surveys in the 1820's; there are others who are new to Ontario and indeed to Canada. Our small library doesn't have the money or the space to stock all the materials we need to service all these people. We need to depend on the larger libraries in the province.

You might even consider that if a book is only requested every few years it makes good sense to have only one copy in the provincial system. Think of the interlibrary loan system as a sort of Internet for books or, if you like, a lane on the information highway reserved for the big rigs and the heavy freight. Through interlibrary loan, a person who lives in South Dumfries can borrow a book on the shelves of any library in southern Ontario. We're worried that this program may be at risk if provincial funding is reduced.

We don't think it's because libraries want to stop providing this service. We're glad that the province is setting up a coordinating body for all libraries in the province, but we feel that the large libraries tend to see us in rural areas as the stray cats at the door. They are quite happy to provide us the odd titbit when times are good and bask in our appreciation, but when times get tough we're worried they're going to shut the door in our face and say, "Sorry, you'll have to take your chances on your own our there."

I think the federal government has learned with health care that it's one thing to express wishes for a uniform standard of service, but if you don't put the money in there, you have about as much influence on the system as an editorial writer.

There are a few other matters. We're considering with some trepidation the decision to allow libraries to charge user fees. I should point out that I already give money to my library. Some people in our community pay an annual membership in the Friends of the Library. Some pay a voluntary annual membership to the public library and many of the people in the Friends have told me they have no problem whatsoever with paying a fee for services, so you might say, "What's the problem then?" The problem is that members of the Friends are the most committed users of the library and we have to consider what the irregular users or non-users of the library feel about this. We have to consider that the library isn't just a business, it's not just a provider of service, it's a missionary enterprise.

Our public libraries in Ontario were founded in the late Victorian era by people who looked at the unlettered masses and said, in the words of the Duke of Wellington, "I don't know what effect they have on the enemy but by God they scare me." The whole point of the public libraries was to train these people up into the culture of self-improvement to make them better citizens. That enterprise continues to this day.

1610

The trouble is that we have some citizens who never set foot inside a library. You can think of them as the heathens of the information age; you can think of our librarians as trying to win them for literacy. I think the explosion of electronic media represents one of the best chances in generations to reach these people.

I was working in an office environment back in the 1980s when desktop computers first began to proliferate, and one of the surprising results of that was that men who'd formerly sent everything to the secretarial pool to be processed were now, at tortoise speed and with Soviet efficiency, typing their own memos on the computer. In the same way that the computer made typing an acceptable activity for middle-aged men, the Internet has made sitting and reading an acceptable activity for teenaged males. This is a great chance to reach not only them but others who currently don't use libraries. There is a hope among librarians, and I think among all of us, that if we can lure people in with the small beer of the Internet, then we can hook them on the hard stuff, books, later on.

If we put up fees for non-core services like that, we're immediately discouraging people from using them, or to continue the missionary metaphor, it's as if the preacher demands a fee from people before he lets them into the revival tent. It just doesn't work that way. As the Friends of the Library, we know that there are tough times ahead. We're going to have to reach farther and deeper into the community to survive. We need the guy at the feed mill behind us, and one of the best ways of reaching him is through our leadership in electronic media.

We know our librarians don't want to charge fees for this service, but we also know that unless the province forbids it, municipal politicians are going to put pressure on our library to start charging for these services and ease the library budget a bit. We urge you to see it from our point of view and leave service fees out of the equation.

I'm sure you've already heard lots today from other speakers who have talked to you about governance. I'll just make the point that in South Dumfries we have only five members on the municipal council, and besides council work and liaison with the county, they also serve on the fire committee, industrial development committee, non-profit housing corporation, parks and rec, the old school committee, the urban service area committee and the community liaison with the OPP. They also hold day jobs, raise their kids and read lessons at the church on Sunday. They don't have the time necessarily to develop full expertise in library matters. They rely heavily on citizen volunteers.

I don't see any change coming in the near future in the way we structure things, three council members, four citizen volunteers on our library board, but I can't foresee any political storms in the future. It may seem really silly to you to talk of something like intellectual freedom in South Dumfries county, but that's one of the things our citizen boards help to do. I don't know why it may become politically expedient to interfere in the affairs of the library, but the arm's-length system has worked very well up to now; we'd like you to keep it.

I'll just close by saying I don't know what sort of day you've had. If you've been dodging brickbats here, you have my sympathy. But you've probably heard people expressing concerns about the legislation, probably well-founded concerns. They've probably also been expressing their affection for and their pride in our local libraries. That pride is especially strong in the rural settlements and townships of Ontario, because with not much money but a lot of wit and ingenuity, we've been able to fashion a system that can put almost any book in the province into the hands of somebody who's eager for knowledge or beauty in their life.

Books aren't all that our rural libraries provide, either. The library for our small community isn't merely an information warehouse, it's our art gallery, our concert hall, our theatre, our archive, and through interlibrary loan it's a door to all the cultural riches of the province. Our system may not work particularly well in terms of abstract ideals of uniformity or rationality, but it does work and our only request is, please let it go on working. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Snow. Again, we're in a position where we only have two minutes, so I'm just going to ask one caucus to ask questions. Mr Martin.

Mr Young: I just want to say it was an excellent presentation.

Mr Martin: I second that comment. It was an excellent presentation and it's so nice that you came all the way in from South Dumfries to make it. We really appreciate it. We've had actually quite a contingent of people here all day. The room's been full so there's obviously a tremendous interest in this issue. I think out there across the province you'll find that hospitals, schools and libraries are the fundamental building blocks of any community.

I think you make a wonderful argument this afternoon for the three issues that have been raised consistently over the day so far: the issue of volunteer citizen board members; the issue of provincial involvement so that you can have access to the library that's available to everybody from a central pot so that we can all plug in; and, of course, as a matter of fact, probably the most interesting point that you made, although they were all interesting, was the issue of how we can now bring people in who haven't been participating.

I go over to a friend's house from time to time to visit. There are a couple of teenagers and they're really wild and woolly, as teenagers are. Up until about a month ago, I never saw them doing homework or reading, but now they've got a new computer and, honest to God, from the minute I get there till I leave they're around the computer and they're into all kinds of wonderful things, so you're right.

The question I have after all of that is, as a Friend of the Library, do you have contact with others in the community who aren't so formally connected and what are they saying about this, if anything?

Mr Snow: Yes, I speak to my neighbours and the thing is, there are people who never set foot inside a library from one end of the year to the next but that doesn't mean they're not strong library supporters. It goes beyond just the people who use the library. I have one woman in the barn next door to us who raises horses, and horses are all she thinks about night and day. I don't think she's ever set foot in the library, but when I told her I was coming down here today to speak out -- I put it as simply as I could -- against cuts to library budgets, she said: "Good for you. Somebody should be doing it." I think some people in our community see the library as being something almost like the police: "I hope to God I never have to use it, but if I do, I'm glad it's there."

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much. We've run out of time. We appreciate your coming here to give your comments.

MONIQUE DULL

The Vice-Chair: I would like to call on Monique Dull, please. Good afternoon and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Monique Dull: Thank you for letting me address you. I want to start by making it clear that I asked to speak about Bill 109 purely as an individual Ontarian. I am not, and have never been, a librarian; none of my family members, close or distant, are librarians; and I am not and have never been married to a librarian. The same goes for board members and support staff who might be affected by this bill, so get that out there in the open.

I am here as one lifelong user of local public libraries, mostly in North York. I am here to point out one thing: The complex, converging pressures which Bill 109 would put on local libraries in Ontario will press down hardest on the library users who need libraries the most: lower-income children, new Canadians and, strange as it sounds at first, the illiterate and the blind.

I will elaborate my argument by referring to the bill and some external facts shortly. But I want to start my argument about class and culture with a quote from Matthew Arnold. It was interesting: When Mr Snow brought up the Duke of Wellington, I felt right at home. Arnold was a great English conservative thinker of the mid-19th century. He was Her Majesty's inspector of the early public school system. He is the one who first called the profit-obsessed middle classes "philistines," a word we still use today with the meaning he assigned it. Arnold's the one who coined the phrase "sweetness and light" when he wrote that in a magazine that was kind of like our Saturday Night magazine today. The phrase "sweetness and light" meant great works of art, classics of culture. Matthew Arnold himself said "sweetness and light" meant "the best that has been thought and said in the world."

1620

Let me draw out some parallels. Ontario has many poor residents; so did England then. Ontario now is rapidly stratifying into class divisions unseen for decades, and the people landing at the bottom of Ontario's pile are no happier with this fact than Matthew Arnold's poor compatriots were in 1868, which was when he wrote his famous tract, Culture and Anarchy. In fact, Arnold published Culture and Anarchy in the midst of some unnerving riots -- that's the anarchy of the title -- before the third reform bill. So it was with this background of socioeconomic division, a background that calls our own province to mind very strongly, it's with all this around him that Arnold urged greater public commitment to distributing all great culture to as many people as possible.

I quote here from a section of Culture and Anarchy called Sweetness and Light: "The men of culture are the true apostles of equality. The great men of culture are those who have a passion for diffusing, for making prevail, for carrying from one end of society to another the best knowledge, the best ideas of their time; who have laboured to divest knowledge of all that was harsh, uncouth, difficult, abstract, professional, exclusive; to humanize knowledge, to make it efficient outside the clique of the cultivated and learned, yet still remaining the best knowledge and thought of the time and a true source therefore of sweetness and light," as he called it.

I hardly need to point out that Ontario's public libraries are the direct descendants of this honest, socially responsible and noble thought. But if we all really did know this fact, if we really did understand how legislated free access to all of a library's cultural materials democratizes knowledge, if we really grasped the idea that this ultimately helps the entire body politic, indirectly helping even the people who could buy up the world's Picassos with a snap of the fingers, if we really all understood the link between legislated library access to all cultural materials on the one hand, and a safe and united society based on culture, not anarchy, on the other hand, then Bill 109 would not have us all in this room.

Bill 109 inevitably pushes libraries to reverse this democratization of culture.

Let me start with section 2, where it revises the act's section 14 and moves fee structures from legislation into regulation. I'm sure you've heard other people discuss this. I've already heard a couple. Even I can see that this possibly provides a cover for the hiking and broadening of fees if that's ever deemed necessary. When these fees go up, it will not be the librarians who are trying to yank the Dr Seuss tape from the hands of a startled five-year-old in downsized Oshawa. No. The fees are inevitable, given the complex converging pressures which Bill 109 would put on our local public libraries.

Section 4 shifts all costs down on the municipalities. Section 2, where it revises section 5 of the act, brings a library board, and therefore its budget, under direct municipal control, another thing that Geoff Snow just mentioned.

If I were a municipal official -- hypothetical statement -- even I, a great fan of public library services, would make sure that my downsized people were fed and housed before I lent anybody a book. So libraries are certain to get short shrift. Ironically, this will happen more in the municipalities with the most people who can't afford to buy themselves culture or knowledge, even if that's in the form of a paperback or a CD-ROM.

These changes will come down hardest on needy users, and that in turn is going to cost all of us. That's Matthew Arnold's point. At Fairview Public Library in North York, I see very heavy borrowing by immigrant families, both adults and children, and audiotape, videotape and CD access is crucial to learning this weird language, English. North York's public library system also has over 36 other languages, and fluency in any one of these other languages ultimately aids fluency in our official languages. An immigrant child who is literate in his or her home language is probably going to speak and write better English than some monolingual anglophone children. It's a simple question of exposure to sign systems, to syntax.

You don't even need an "ethnic" story to prove the class-dividing potential of unlegislated no-fee policies. Any poor person, child or adult, is less likely to be literate and therefore needs legislated free access to non-print cultural artefacts. If you can't read Macbeth, at least it's still a great action flick. It really is.

If Bill 109 hands over control, then, it really hands over control to take some things away. Section 2, where it revises section 12(c) and (d), allows and implicitly encourages our libraries to raise operating funds by renting out space. To a degree, this already happens. Fairview has a food and drink corner, the Daily Perk, no doubt to raise some money as well as to feed people and quench their thirst. But the North York Public Library's administration conceives of its space, I think rightly, as public space, for the community. So Fairview's first-floor spaces are rented out at a non-profit rent to community service groups like the adult literacy program and the Ontario Audio Library Service. Needless to say, a municipal council faced with no provincial help will quickly look to those office spaces for market rent income.

Let me describe briefly what Bill 109 might put at risk on Fairview library's first floor.

The Ontario Audio Library Service runs what people commonly think of as "recording for the blind." That's the phrase that's used for it in the States. Here it's called other things in different provinces. The Ontario Audio Library Service organizes, with a skeleton and underpaid staff, 8,500 hours of volunteer reading a year. It produces, with these volunteer hours of reading, over 100 new tapes of required course reading for students at post-secondary institutions in Ontario. The students who use the recordings are legally blind or print-disabled in some other way, via dyslexia, for example.

The service has been cut back already. This is hard on the blind and print-disabled students, because it's crucial that they get their recordings of the textbooks on time. One student at Sir Wilfrid Laurier University wrote to the Ontario Audio Library Service to say how horrible it was when tapes were late and how thankful she was when the tapes got to her on time. After all, who wants the end of a textbook after the exam is over?

Fairview library is the Metro location, with 80 volunteers. I'm one of them. I've recorded hours of bizarrely, comically diverse texts: philosophy, the history of the superhighway, British explorers in the Caribbean, and most recently and most painfully, a textbook on the computer language C++. Once a week, we each sit in a recording booth in this tiny but still market-rentable office. It's not easy to make the time, but I have to. How could I not share some of my sight? It's not easy to get there, but I feel secure in this small public space, doing a very small public service. To be honest, I don't know how many volunteers would continue if the Ontario Audio Library Service had to move to the basement, for example, of a church we didn't know, or to a private home, if that space were to be seen at the end of the lease as being conducive to gaining some market rent.

The same could happen to the adult literacy program down the hall. The irony would be even worse. If you can't read, you want to take a tape out with information -- I would, anyway -- or with a narrative on it. Yet if you can't read, you're not well off, so you can't afford to take a tape out of the library because they suddenly have fees attached. This is a likely scenario. Surely this would be a case, if it happened, of the morally blind robbing the legally blind and the illiterate. These are the sorts of risks Bill 109 poses to our local libraries and, more broadly, to Ontario's social cohesion.

1630

To close, I will just go back to Matthew Arnold, again from Culture and Anarchy:

"Culture works differently [from politics or religion].... Culture seeks to do away with classes; to make the best that has been thought and known in the world current everywhere; to make all live in an atmosphere of sweetness and light, where they may use ideas as culture uses them itself, freely -- nourished and not bound by them."

Mr Young: Thank you very much for your excellent presentation. It was very interesting. I really enjoyed your quotes as well.

Ms Dull: Thank you. It's a great book.

Mr Young: I'd like to quote too a little bit from Andrew Carnegie, who left enough money to build 111 libraries in Ontario. He was a very successful capitalist and a philanthropist. He said the best gift that could be given to a community was a free library, "provided the community will accept and maintain it as a public institution, as much a part of the city property as its public schools, and indeed as an adjunct to these," which gets me to my point about what is information, what is education and what is the purpose of libraries.

We have libraries that loan out toys and video films and Frank Sinatra records and a whole range of things, and we know, for instance, that at the University of Toronto, the Robarts library, the students take up all the computer terminals that are there essentially for research and block them using e-mail. Do you think it's really appropriate for the taxpayers to pay for somebody's e-mail use or their entertainment use or do you think that money should rather go to providing basic educational information?

Ms Dull: I think e-mail actually -- although you might not have intended to, you gave me a very good thing to work with there.

Mr Young: I just want to learn about it; I just want to understand it.

Ms Dull: Sure, and I'm just trying to say that taking the last one you dwelled on, I think I could illuminate it with this other side. E-mail has become an absolutely crucial part of educational interchange now. In fact I am at present finishing a doctoral degree in the United States, although you wouldn't think so, because I'm in Toronto. I have done that and I have had excellent communication with my professors there. Granted, I've been using the Freenet because I don't have access to U of T's e-mail, but I also, if I were a doctoral student or an undergraduate here, would be able to contact scholars across the world immediately.

Mr Young: But I'm thinking of public libraries. I don't think they get too many doctorate students in public libraries. I'm thinking of children and teens who might use it for social or --

Ms Dull: With all due respect, many teens would want to have that kind of stimulating contact.

Mr Young: They do.

Ms Dull: I don't think we should foreclose the idea that perhaps a good many very intelligent teenagers would use it to surf the Net looking up stuff for essays. I see that already at Fairview. These are kids who don't have a computer at home. What's nice is that they have a reference librarian who can tell them, "This is where you point and click." It's actually a very intimidating thing.

Mr Young: I agree. I was talking about the social use as opposed to the academic.

Ms Dull: You can't really distinguish, though, because somebody might take Macbeth out for academic use; my husband takes it out for a great read on a Friday night. Again, I think texts, although we don't want them to be, are always up for grabs to a certain degree of interpretation, even up for grabs in the motivation with which we approach them.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry, we've run out of time. Thank you very much, Ms Dull, for appearing here before us today.

FEDERATION OF WOMEN TEACHERS' ASSOCIATIONS OF ONTARIO

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Maret Sädem-Thompson and Pat McAdie, please. Good afternoon, ladies, and welcome to the standing committee.

Ms Maret Sädem-Thompson: Thank you very much. I'm Maret Sädem-Thompson, first vice-president, and with me is Pat McAdie, researcher, speaking on behalf of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, representing 41,000 women teachers in public elementary schools in Ontario.

Bill 109, like cuts to education over the past two years, reduces opportunities for Ontario's children and adult learners. FWTAO is always concerned about equality of access. We agree with Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, when she stated: "There is no doubt that our library system is one of Ontario's greatest cultural and economic assets." However, rather than improve the library system, as Mushinski maintains, FWTAO believes that Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, will take literacy and learning out of the reach of many of those who need it the most.

FWTAO has three major areas of concern with Bill 109: the potential damage to literacy, governance issues, and the slight to the democratic process. These issues will be addressed in turn.

This government has maintained that literacy is of key importance to both an individual's success and to the province's success. Our libraries cannot play a central role in this pursuit, however, if they are poorly funded and have user fees for certain aspects of their holdings and services. Literacy requires a commitment that includes adequate funding of resources such as the schools and libraries of this province, and it requires that access be freely given to these resources.

Bill 109 impedes our pursuit of literacy in a number of ways. It imposes user fees for everything except access to the library and for borrowing print materials. I don't need to remind you that Ontarians already pay user fees through their taxes. Bill 109, however, imposes new fees, but these new fees will not be geared to income. By eliminating provincial funding, smaller libraries will find it difficult to keep current and to provide their services.

There are a number of ways that these user fees may impact on literacy. In our electronic era, more and more materials are being made available in forms other than print. Imposing user fees on access to electronic information available through the libraries means that access will be limited. This will create a two-tiered system, where those with the financial means will be able to become more literate and more computer-literate. There is already a class division, regarding computer literacy and access to information only available through the Internet. We fear that this bill will increase the division, and I'm proud and pleased that many of the previous speakers already addressed that issue.

In order to provide access to the citizens of remote communities to more material, and often the more current material, a system of interlibrary loans has been established. Bill 109 will enable libraries to charge user fees for accessing this service. This will mean that those living in remote communities, particularly children and adults living in poverty, will be financially penalized and will not be able to access the range of materials available to those in larger centres or with more money.

Many libraries have collections of language tapes. These tapes are very beneficial to citizens coming from other countries in helping them learn English. Bill 109 will allow libraries to charge a user fee for the use of these tapes. This will mean that those with the financial means to pay such a fee will have an advantage over those who do not.

Music programs are experiencing cutbacks in our schools. Our public libraries allow people a means to learn about different types of music. Research has shown that music training improves children's abilities in reading and mathematics. Imposing user fees on music tapes and CDs means that only some of our children will have the opportunity to be exposed to a variety of types of music. All children and learners should have access to music. Bill 109 reduces this access.

Under Bill 109, a library will not be permitted to charge user fees for using the printed material in the library. Unfortunately, what's happened instead over the last two years and certainly looking into the future is that they've had to reduce their library hours of access. When you reduce library hours, children, adults and seniors are denied access to a safe place, a place where they can pursue literacy and learning.

Since coming into power, this government has reduced the funding to libraries quite significantly, by 20% in each of the last two years. Now they have decided that libraries will be completely funded by the municipalities, with no provincial funding at all. This is part of the whole disentanglement exercise. The government maintains that this whole exercise is about a means of better providing the various services to the people of Ontario. However, it appears that it is more about providing the means to cut funding for various programs in order to pay for a tax cut. The tax cut will only benefit those who are already well-off in our province and the service cuts that are occurring will hurt those who are less well-off.

1640

We support the position that local communities are in the best position to determine the needs of its citizens, but to be able to act on this knowledge they must have the financial capacity. Many of our communities do not have this financial capacity without the assistance of the provincial government. Base funding provided by the provincial government helps to ensure more equity of services and programs across the province. Library funding definitely falls into this category.

We agree that municipal leaders will want to maintain the library budgets, but when faced with having to provide long-term care for seniors, child care and ambulance services, to name a few, we fear that libraries will take a back seat. And what are the chances of seeing an increase in any budget?

The cuts in funding already experienced have meant that some tough decisions have had to be made: for example, the bookmobile, a very much-used service in Oshawa, has been cut entirely for next year. The library in Alliston is now closed every Wednesday, Saturdays of long weekends, two weeks in August and three weeks in December. We have further information about the number of libraries that have endured cuts. The municipalities have not had the ability to pick up the slack so far, and there is no indication that the downloading process currently under way will enable them to pick up the slack in the future.

Book budgets in many libraries are being cut at this time when much material is being updated at an unprecedented rate. This makes it even harder for our smaller libraries to keep current. If you think about the fact that when you have to buy one computer for a library, you cannot buy 166 books, they are being forced into deciding whether they will reduce the access, particularly an access to which they can have a user fee because of the technological aspect of the library.

Fund-raising is not the best solution to budgetary restraint. As we have seen in the school system, relying on fund-raising further ensures a two-class system. Those communities that have more ability to raise the funds can provide a better service. FWTAO absolutely deplores the need to rely on fund-raising in order to provide basic services.

Mushinski stated, "The new library framework proposes both to improve library service to the people of Ontario and to lower the costs for those services." This is exactly the same type of statement that we have heard from the Minister of Education and Training. FWTAO maintains that this a completely illogical statement. You cannot improve a system by cutting its funding, especially resource-dependent systems like libraries and our education system.

FWTAO takes exception to the contention that representation from local school boards is a mere process-oriented requirement. The connection between the schools and the libraries is more vital than this. Two-way communications is logical between the library board and the school board. Both systems are involved in learning. When I think of the libraries I've spoken to, for example, they would talk to the teacher board members and find out whether they're studying Mexico or China and make sure they have the kind of materials in the libraries locally so that children in our school system can access those. That will be denied to our children.

FWTAO also supports the recommendation from AMPLO and others that the library boards be maintained as primarily citizen boards. AMLPO recommends that boards be required to consist of a combination of municipal council and volunteer citizen members. This would help to ensure that the library boards are at arm's length and that community involvement is maintained.

Democracy involves more than holding an election every few years. It means ensuring that everyone has the ability to be involved in the decision-making process at the local level as well as at the provincial level. It means that everyone is kept informed of decisions that are being debated. Part of the pattern of this government seems to be to put vital parts of bills into regulations rather than into the legislation itself. This means that changes can be made without public debate.

Bill 109 guarantees that no user fees will be charged for print materials, in a regulation. While we disagree with the distinction being drawn between print and other forms of information, FWTAO adamantly disagrees with this being left to regulation. We fear that one day we will go to our local libraries only to find that a change has been made and we must now pay to even enter our public library. We do not believe this is a democratic way to govern our province.

The Minister of Education and Training, John Snobelen, has maintained that expenditure cuts can be made outside of the classroom without affecting the education students receive. He's also defined the classroom in a very narrow way, excluding school libraries, among other things. FWTAO finds it perplexing that the school library would not be viewed as an integral part of the education system.

We also find it perplexing that the community libraries are not viewed in a more serious manner. Our libraries are vital to the economic and social wellbeing of this province. Our libraries help to ensure and maintain a literate population. Lifelong learning cannot happen in a vacuum. Literacy is too important to be downloaded.

The minds of children and all our citizens are too important to waste. Bill 109 is shortsighted and mean-spirited. The innocent victims of this legislation are Ontario's children and adult learners, particularly the one in four living in poverty in this province. We urge this committee recommend to the government that Bill 109 be scrapped in the name of literacy.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about two minutes for questions, so I'm going to go to a single caucus again.

Interjection.

The Chair: For the previous speaker, when I wasn't here. We had a single questioner, and that was Mr Young. We go to Mr Gravelle now.

Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon, and thank you very much for your presentation. It's so important to have the link in a formal sense between the school system and the library system. I hope we have other presentations that do so as we go along. We won't have much time to discuss very many things, but it's an excellent brief.

The final point, in terms of the whole definition of classroom and libraries being outside the classroom, is something that a lot of us disagree with, but it also sets a tone and says something, an attitude. Probably some of the concerns we have with this bill are about precisely the same tone, which somehow degrades the value of the library system. Can you address that in some way as well? To me, and obviously to you as well, as to so many, there are few things more important than the library system, and the library system is part of the education system. I think those links need to be made and I'm grateful you've made them today. Anything more you can add to that, I'd be grateful.

Ms Sädem-Thompson: The real concern for the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario is that this is one more layer that's being added to the cuts imposed on the children and the learners in the province. If our school libraries weren't being closed, if our school block budgets weren't significantly reduced so that we have to decide, are we going to buy a computer for the classroom or books for the school; and then for those same children who can't get books on Mexico or China or trees or frogs in their school library because the door is closed and there's no teacher-librarian there any more, when they go to the public library the hours have been cut so they don't have the access, and the staff has been cut, the pages, those young people who work in the libraries -- and our young people, we know, have a high unemployment rate to begin with. The Oshawa library, for example, has had to cut its number of pages in half.

Those people can't help kids, can't help those children do the work they need to do well in school, can't prepare them for tomorrow. It's constantly an attack on little people and adult learners who want to improve themselves. I'm concerned about those issues on behalf of the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation today.

1650

CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS, ONTARIO

The Chair: Would Vicky Smallman please come forward? Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Ms Vicky Smallman: Thanks. Just to let you know, I'm here on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Students' Ontario component. We represent over 110,000 post-secondary students in Ontario. You may wonder, since many post-secondary students already have access to libraries, as Terence Young has pointed out already today, why we're taking an interest in Bill 109 and the proposed changes to public libraries in Ontario. We believe that public libraries are an important resource to Ontario's students. In my opinion, it is a vital component of our public education system, and that includes the post-secondary system. I'm extending the links that have already been made by the federation of women teachers and other speakers today into the post-secondary realm.

While students who are attending universities do have access to libraries, they offer a very different type of service than a public library does and different types of materials. As our post-secondary library budgets get cut back, they tend to lose what is perceived to be the more frivolous type of holdings -- magazines, newspapers, journal subscriptions, some reference materials that are available to public libraries -- so public libraries remain a very important resource to many post-secondary students in the province. As well, for college students, frequently the public library is the only resource that they have to do any type of research or projects or that type of thing.

It's also a very important point of access to information for students who may be pursuing programs at a distance from their institution. Particularly, and most frequently, they are the only source of information for students who live in remote communities who are either studying at a very small college there or are pursuing their programs at a distance. I know this government in particular is interested in distance education, so it's very important that we make sure that students who are pursuing distance ed have access to the types of resources they need. Many of these students do not have access to the Internet, do not have access to the type of technology that is so held up as the way of the future by this government.

Also, as we've already heard today, it's very important to provide access to texts for students for disabilities, particularly students who are visually impaired.

Our concern is that Bill 109 will dangerously erode access to public libraries for Ontario's post-secondary students and will correspondingly set up more barriers to access to post-secondary education for those students. In particular, I am thinking of students who come from low-income families, students who live in the north, aboriginal students, new Canadians and students with disabilities. Those groups in particular are those who already have a number of barriers facing them to post-secondary education, and those barriers will be increased by the erosion of the quality of our library system.

The downloading of the financial responsibilities for public libraries in Bill 109 could have a dangerous effect -- and we've already heard this -- on holdings. Post-secondary students don't just want public libraries. We want quality libraries, with up-to-date resources and materials, knowledgeable staff and reasonable hours of operation, especially for students who are pursuing degrees at a distance or students in remote communities. They often have full-time jobs and therefore rely on accessing libraries after the hours of their own work. As budgets get cut back and libraries have to shorten their hours, we find the doors to education in general are closed to people because they just don't have access to the resources.

Stable provincial funding and legislative guarantees of free access to all materials in circulation, not just the ones that come on paper, are very important for students. They protect students and members of the community from the imposition of user fees, which could limit access to those who can afford to pay. I've presented to this committee before about some of the financial barriers facing students right now. Increased tuition, mandatory ancillary fees, user fees for on-campus resources, including library services, are creating more and more barriers, are putting students under more and more financial pressure.

This is really shutting people out of our post-secondary system, and it's shutting out the people we most want to get an education today; that is, people on welfare, people who have low income, people who are supporting families, people who need to do retraining who are returning to the workforce, who have been downsized, or people in similar situations. Those are the people we want to be able to access education. Those are the people who actually use public libraries the most.

If we start to put more and more financial pressures on them, I think we'll find that they're going to abandon post-secondary education altogether. I think that's going to be very dangerous for the economic and social welfare of the province.

We also share the concerns of the other people who have spoken today about the loss of public control over the libraries, the loss of community input into library boards. The community does know what the community needs. The community also needs the reliability of stable government funding as well as local control over library boards as a kind of balance to make sure the quality of our libraries remains very high.

Also, I can emphasize that the library is much more to students than a place where they can go and borrow books or get access to information. They are an important centre in the community in terms of providing information about the community. My own public library is in Derwyn Shea's riding and I go there all the time. There's all kinds of information about what's going on and what resources in the community are available to us. That role as a community centre is really underrated, and we need to make sure that role is able to be continued.

It's also a gathering place. We've heard already today about the various groups that meet and hold events at libraries. That also cannot be underrated as an important part of the community.

It's also an important employer, to provide jobs for recent graduates or students who are trying to get by. That is becoming increasingly more important to people in my generation.

Also, we cannot underestimate the role public libraries play in lifelong learning, from children's story circles all the way to Internet access for the elderly. We're finding that libraries will be more and more important in the information age.

If we continue to download the responsibility for maintaining this on to municipalities, which are already overburdened with responsibilities and with decreasing budgets, we're going to find that this will have an impact on Ontario's ability to be competitive, on Ontario's ability to be a leader, not just in the economic sense but in the cultural and the social sense.

I'll end my remarks with that and see if there are any questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have two minutes per caucus for questions.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. It's always good to hear from you and to get, through you, the student perspective on some of these things, because I don't think there's any doubt in anybody's mind that the group you represent is in many significant ways the future of our communities. What we provide them by way of access to learning and resources is really important.

You talked abut the interplay that goes on between the community public library and the institution library and how one supplements the other. You also talked about the negative impact any user fee will have on students, as they're already heavily burdened financially.

As you talk to students out there about this bill in particular -- there are three pieces that have been brought before us today that are of tremendous concern. One is the new fee structure we anticipate and the fact that it will apply to the new media of learning; another is citizen participation on boards to control those; and the third is the provincial contribution. Which of those would be of greatest importance to students?

1700

Ms Smallman: Definitely the user fees will be the most important in the long run. I should add that we represent students at Northern College Kapuskasing and Northern College Haileybury, two very remote communities with very small colleges, and the colleges have very few resources. The students also are pretty hard up in terms of money, most of them being from the north and not having a lot of potential for part-time work and this type of thing. The creation of more and more user fees at libraries in communities that do not have a lot of resources available to them anyway is probably the most important aspect to students right now.

But the loss of citizen input as well, and local control --

The Chair: Sorry to cut you off, but we're into the government caucus's time.

Mrs Munro: When you talked about citizen input, I just want to come back to the fact that obviously the responsibility of a municipal council in relation to the library itself is still very much there. I want to point out that although the issue of a library board is in question, the relationship with the municipality is there in terms of the accountability of those people who have been elected municipally.

Ms Smallman: I understand that dynamic, but the problem is that students, because they're a very transitory group, don't often have a chance to be involved in municipal elections and that type of thing and don't often have a chance to voice their concerns or get people in there who they think will represent their interests. Therefore, smaller boards, like library boards, are very important to them in terms of getting direct input into the mandate and direction of the library.

Mrs Munro: I'd like to come back to the issue you focused on particularly, that is, the question of user fee. During the course of the day, we've heard of a great variety in terms of the kinds of things that libraries are able to offer. One of those is of course the range of opportunity, which goes from the pre-schoolers' reading circle to the grade 3 student who needs to have a question answered to the technology potential to help small business, to become almost a research base in a much more sophisticated way than people have traditionally understood libraries to function.

Since nothing is free and everything is determined by the taxpayer, do you see any difference in responsibility if this is a community-driven decision for fees which would distinguish, not between material, but between use?

Ms Smallman: Actually, I don't. I think that people are already contributing a great deal to the library system as well as to our other public services through their taxes. If anything, the range of resources that the library can provide to me is argument for more funding, not less, because they are such a vital service to all aspects of the community.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much. I thought your presentation was just great.

As we start getting near the end of the day, you begin to get the shape of all the presentations coming together. There have been some real links; the tie-in with the women teachers and the tie-in with all the boards and everything else is pretty apparent. I'm getting more and more to think that what it's coming down to is literally about whether you value libraries in a certain way, whether you accept their importance and their educational connection. I think you made that point very well.

Perhaps that's what our job is, for those of us who feel that way, to try and convince the government not to be afraid of the citizen boards and to be very careful about user fees and look very carefully at provincial funding. I really have no question, other than to thank you. If you've got any more you want to add at the end of this -- I just think you hit a lot of points very strongly, and I'm very grateful.

Ms Smallman: I'll just add, to expand on that, that the CFS does not see the education system in neat little boxes like that; it's a holistic thing. From junior kindergarten all the way through the elementary and secondary system to the college system to the university system to adult education and lifelong learning, it's all part of the same whole, and you cannot really sacrifice one for other. You need to make sure that the whole system is healthy because that is the foundation of our society, the foundation of our province. If it's not working together as a whole, the rest of the province will not be able to work effectively.

It will be more and more important in the future, I think. You see it in everything. You've seen it the latest issue of the Economist. Everybody's talking about it, so it's time that this government and other governments take it as seriously as those of us who use the system have to.

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation to the committee today.

JANE MARSLAND

The Chair: Would Jane Marsland please come forward? Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes to make a presentation. If there's time left at the end, I'll divide it among the caucus members to ask questions.

Ms Jane Marsland: I would like to thank the members of the standing committee on general government for allowing me the opportunity to present my views and concerns with respect to Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997. I'm speaking to you today from a number of contexts: as a reader, lifelong learner and frequent user of library services; as an active participant in a democratic society; and as a worker in the arts and cultural sector.

As a reader, lifelong learner and frequent user of the library services, I am very concerned about the withdrawal of provincial support for Ontario's public libraries and the resulting imposition of user fees on materials and services.

Mr Young: Mr Chair, on a point of order: I wonder if we could just ask, are you representing the Danny Grossman Dance Company or speaking as an individual?

Ms Marsland: I'm speaking as an individual.

Mr Young: Thank you. It appears here that you're --

The Chair: It's not a point of order, but it's fine to ask that, I guess. Go ahead, ma'am. Sorry for the interruption.

Ms Marsland: While I am now living in Toronto and have access to an exceptional library system, I grew up in a number of very small communities in Ontario, so I am very well aware of the inequities in the depth and breadth of library collections and services outside of the larger cities. I believe that provincial funding of Ontario's public libraries is essential, both to ensure that all the people of Ontario have equal access to library materials and services and to foster resource sharing and interconnections among libraries across the province. Without provincial support, libraries will be forced to operate in isolation and will be limited by the resources and political necessities of their local municipalities.

The withdrawal of provincial funding will lead to the pressure to introduce user fees on some materials and services. While I was pleased to see that there is still a regulation in place which protects the public's right to enter libraries and to continue to borrow print materials without charge, I was concerned that the principle was not part of the act but just a regulation, which can be changed much more easily. As well, limiting free access to only print items seems counterproductive to the new informational requirements of the people of Ontario. In particular, I think this will just exacerbate the gap between the children of the well-to-do and the poor for equal access to the tools required to take their place in a knowledge-based society.

From my own perspective, I recently started to learn the Ojibway language and culture. I decided to take the course not only because I was interested in it, but also because it was offered for free and I had no money to pay for some of the other courses I contemplated taking. The whole experience has been very enlightening for me, as up to this time I had never studied anything on which I couldn't find all sorts of study materials. Well, just go into any bookstore and try and find Ojibway language texts. The only place in this city that you can get them is in the native collection at the Spadina Road library. Learning a new language requires hearing it, and the new regulations would require charging a fee for the audio tapes. If any of you were to come to the Ojibway class you would immediately see that it is not filled with a lot of prosperous people, but it is filled with a lot of people who are very anxious to learn or relearn their native language and culture.

1710

At the same time, I learned how important it is to have trained librarians who are knowledgeable about special collections. While all the library staff and volunteers are very pleasant and try to be helpful, there were a number of times that only the librarian could help me understand the native collection and locate certain items I required. From my reading of Bill 109, it is very probable that there will be a user fee charged for this service. It seems to me that trying to replace the provincial cuts with user fees will not generate anywhere near the amount of being money cut and will only place an undue hardship on many people who are trying to relearn their cultural roots or on people who, through unemployment, must get information on learning new skills to survive in today's world.

It should also be noted that artists use the public library system to a great extent. Most of the time spent during the artistic process is in research. For many artists, who are already at the bottom of the economy in terms of their living wage, any imposition of user fees will just cause more difficulties in creating a work of art.

As an active participant in a democratic society and as a worker in the arts sector, I firmly believe in intellectual freedom. I believe that citizen-based library boards have maintained this tradition for over a century, so I greatly fear any change in the current arm's-length nature of the governance of public libraries. Library boards must support the principle of intellectual freedom and must also have the freedom to set collection policies that ensure this principle.

I also believe that a strong democracy depends on strong civic institutions that actively involve citizens in a meaningful way. Arts organizations have always been accountable for their public funds through a board of trustees made up from the community. I do not see that the public libraries should be any different. Citizens who serve on library boards can also act as buffers to pressures from special-interest groups which might challenge the library's right to acquire and make available materials in accordance with its policies. Municipal councils could get bogged down in controversial issues without the benefit of an arm's-length relationship with the board of the public library. In terms of accountability, it seems clear in Bill 109 that municipal councils still retain the line-by-line approval of library budgets.

Also, without community-based volunteer boards, fund-raising will not be the option it could be to develop more revenues for library services. People are not likely to donate money to a library if they think it is just another department of their municipal council.

I would like to quote from R.H. Tawney, who was one of the founders of adult education and a great supporter of public libraries, which he regarded as essential for democratic life:

"The purpose of an adult education worthy of the name is not merely to impart reliable information, important though that is. It is still more to foster the intellectual vitality to master and use it so that knowledge become a stimulus to constructive thought. Also it is partly, at least, the process by which we transcend the barriers of our isolated personalities and become partners in a universe of interest which we share with our fellow men and women, living and dead alike."

That's one of the best definitions of community that I know, and it is why I believe so strongly in sustaining an excellent public library system for all of Ontario. A library is, as Jorge Luis Borges states, "The universe -- which others call the library."

I would like to conclude my remarks by reiterating the two key amendments requested by the Toronto Public Library board on Bill 109:

The act must guarantee that citizen volunteers are the majority members on library boards;

The act must guarantee free access to all library materials: print, audiovisual and electronic.

I implore the government to reconsider its decision to phase out the operating household grant over a period of years and thus end provincial support to Ontario's public libraries.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about two minutes per caucus for questions.

Mr Shea: Thank you for your presentation. A couple of questions, if I could just ask you to walk through it with me. I have seen this quote or similar to it in two or three presentations today, as we speak of patterns that are emerging. Let me just take the quote in the fourth paragraph on page 2. "Citizens who serve on library boards can also act as buffers to pressures from special-interest groups," and on it goes.

The first question I'd like to ask you to put your mind to is, why should they be buffers? Surely men and women are elected to represent their municipalities, the whole range of the municipality. Why should there be a buffer between them and their community, first of all? Second, what sort of issues did you have in mind that you think the council should be buffered from?

Ms Marsland: Censorship, primarily. My major concern is censorship.

Mr Shea: Councillors would be less capable of dealing with the issue of censorship than --

Ms Marsland: Censorship in itself is a very difficult issue, and for people who are elected to office to get involved in that kind of skirmish -- you're going to have pressures from both sides of the issue. The major reason I raise it is, in a democracy, the whole idea of intellectual freedom and tolerance. While some people might object to certain books or ideas, I think in a strong democracy they should be available to everybody.

Mr Shea: In your mind, there are issues that the directly elected representatives should probably not be involved in directly.

Ms Marsland: I think it makes it very difficult. I think it's a discussion that the citizens of the community are probably better able to deal with.

Mr Shea: I noticed your comments about your concern that if you're not very careful, in terms of fund-raising a community may look upon the library as just another department of the municipal council. But in some ways, is that not the case already? Does council not have to decide how much funding will go to the library board, how much funding will go to sewers, how much will go to the fire department? Don't they have to do that now?

Ms Marsland: When I'm talking about fund-raising, I'm talking about people donating privately, over and above that. In most instances, people want to make sure that when they are giving funds to anything, not just the library, that there is an independent board of trustees overseeing those moneys. I could be wrong, but in legislation, if you are doing fund-raising you would have to be incorporated as a charity, and I don't think you can if you're totally connected to the government.

Mr Gravelle: To follow up on the point Mr Shea was making, and it's been made before, when you have a library board there is a number of advantages to having majority citizen participation on library boards, and one of them is the fund-raising aspect. You get people who are very devoted to the library, for a number of reasons and, you're right, it is arm's length so there is a separate relationship. One worries about the whole volunteer component, fund-raising being just one element of it, if indeed there is no citizen involvement on that board, which is possible. I think it's a very good point.

You also make the point about user fees. One of the great concerns is lack of access. Obviously, you made that point very sharply in terms of the fact that people who have a lower income for a variety of reasons might actually use a library more often, but if you have user fees in certain places, in terms of the non-print material, you're going to have a problem.

I found your brief very helpful and I'm grateful. If there are any comments you want to add, please feel free, but I think you hit a lot of the important points.

Ms Marsland: Primarily, the worry that a lot of people have expressed today is the fact that there are so many things now that require additional funding or additional user fees that it is getting very difficult for people, especially families and people of lower income, to be able to provide the kind of education and entertainment, because it's also that. A library is really a centre, in many communities, that's very important for a lot of people at every level of the socioeconomic scale.

1720

Mr Martin: I want to thank you for coming forward and telling us your story. I think you are the first user -- although everybody who came was a user of the library, your sole reason for being here is to share with us how you use the library and how what is happening here will impact on you as a user of the library for the purposes you have outlined.

It's kind of tragic that your story really doesn't in any way connect with what this legislation is about. This legislation is about nothing less than a downloading of the cost of doing business by this government on to municipalities and then turning over to municipalities some of the tools they will need in order to themselves download on to libraries a reduction in the money spent on that resource, all so that at the end of the day, this government can turn over to the richest of our citizens a tax break so they can go out and buy their own books and their computers and access the Internet, without any concern at all about the fact that this will diminish the ability of people like yourself to have access to the information you need to better yourself, the information that's needed in every community so we can all be decent and civilized and learn and grow and contribute in the way we want to, if we want to live up to our potential, if we want our communities to live up to its potential. How does that make you feel?

Ms Marsland: It bothers me a great deal in the sense that I know a lot of people who are having increasing difficulties because of being unemployed, because of all the increasing cuts. As another personal perspective, our company is only employed six months of the year and the rest of the year we're on unemployment insurance, so it makes it very difficult. Any more user fees just cuts out -- as I said, an enormous amount of the artist's work is involved in research, and they use the library system for that. It makes it very difficult.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Marsland, for coming forward to make your presentation today.

AL FIORINO

The Chair: Would Al Fiorino please come forward? Good afternoon, Mr Fiorino. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Al Fiorino: Thank you very much. First of all, I would like to thank the members of the committee on general government for this opportunity to comment on the proposed bill regarding the local control of public libraries. Despite the fact that this bill may be overshadowed by Bills 103 and 104 in public discussion and debate, I believe it represents an historic development in its implicit recognition of local governments' direct responsibility in ensuring that in a knowledge-based society every citizen has free access to the ever-growing stores of information being amassed.

In a knowledge-based society, accessibility to information is not simply a privilege of the few but a need of the majority. If individuals are to be successful in today's ever-changing economic markets and rapidly changing cultural landscape, they need to have quick access to the information tools and resources to facilitate effective engagement and accommodation.

The handing over of complete control of libraries to the municipal governments is also a recognition that in rapidly changing socioeconomic environments a community's information needs can best be ascertained and met at the local level. The onus will be on local municipalities to provide the required funding to cover the basic capital and operational expenditures of the different library systems, and to develop other support structures by which to secure funds to cover any shortfalls in program areas deemed worthy of continuance or implementation but for which moneys are not available. I will come back to the latter point further on in the presentation when I consider the Bill 103 amendments.

The creation of a highly productive economic society in Ontario is basically the prime goal of this current government. To accomplish this, the government has set out for itself an impressive agenda of measures by which to reduce our deficit and debt load, encourage consumer spending, increase our credit rating in the international community and achieve economies of scale in the way we conduct business in the public sector throughout the province. This agenda of laudable initiatives is certainly reflected in changes introduced by way of Bill 109, particularly as these fiscally responsive measures are applied to the rationalization of the government of large municipalities such as those of cities found within the greater Toronto area and region.

The improvement of management practices over the last 40 years and the numerous developments in both the field of data processing and the area of telecommunication technology can permit us, as we move into the 21st century, to establish very lean, highly centralized and cost-effective administrative units by which to manage the needs and services of large municipalities. At the same time, they provide us with an opportunity to develop regional community infrastructures that are smaller in scale and more personal and thus more responsive to local needs and concerns. I believe that Bill 109 and the amended Bill 103 do exactly that.

What Bill 109 does is to give exclusive jurisdiction over libraries to the democratically elected municipal councils throughout the province. In the case of the soon to be amalgamated cities of Toronto, York, Scarborough, East York, North York and Etobicoke, this authority will rest with the council of the city of Toronto to be elected during the next municipal election in November 1997. It is the responsibility of these councils to appoint local library boards. In the new city of Toronto, it will be one of the first duties of the newly elected council to establish a library board, the largest in Canada, that will oversee 95 branches which together currently have operating budgets totalling approximately $120 million.

What the amended Bill 103 does is to set the stage for the establishment of local community councils and concomitant infrastructures in each of the currently existing municipal jurisdictions to act as political vehicles for local input and participation. The amended Bill 103 has the potential of facilitating the establishment and development of supportive infrastructures unique to each amalgamated jurisdiction for the various service and/or program areas. In the case of libraries, the amended Bill 103 allows the council to create a variety of valuable links and organizational units in designated areas within the amalgamated jurisdictions. I suggest that these links and local organizational units should include:

(1) A district or area chief librarian responsible for all management functions with respect to one designated sector of the newly created library board and reporting directly to the chief officer of the library board.

(2) A local library advisory board or council consisting exclusively of local citizens from different sectors of the community and whose main mandate would be to advise the local community council on local library needs and concerns. It would act as an advocacy group.

(3) Representation on the library board for the city of Toronto in the person of the chair of the library advisory council or board.

(4) Representation on the library board for the city of Toronto in the person of two council members from each jurisdiction.

(5) A library partnership group consisting of neighbourhood volunteers from both the public and corporate sectors of the community who would lend support to local libraries in such areas as community program implementation and fund-raising.

The above examples are just a few of the many possible links and organizational units that the transition team established by Bill 103 should consider to ensure that in the end the harmonization of local interests, needs and services with the purposes of Ontario's library systems is achieved.

The library partnership group proposed above could play an important part in spearheading the fund-raising activities of local libraries. Fund-raising projects undertaken for the procurement of special resources and for the financing of unique programs would come under the purview of this body. The group could also be responsible for exploring the feasibility of establishing an endowment fund for the local library as a means of generating additional financial resources for the support of special capital projects or for the delivery of special programs.

Bill 109 gives the authority to determine the composition of the library board to the elected members of the municipal councils. The only recommendation that I would make with respect to the matter of the composition of the library board is at the very least the newly created library board should consist of equal representation from each of the currently existing municipalities in the form of one councillor, one member of the community council, and the chair of the library advisory board or council proposed earlier, for a minimum complement of 18 members. It might also be wise to supplement this number with the appointment of an additional citizen at large from each of the currently existing municipalities, for a full complement of 24 members.

1730

Free access to basic library resources and services: I support municipal regulation 14, which continues the long-standing tradition of free access to such basic resources and services as "admission to library, borrowing by residents of books and other printed materials, and borrowing by or for residents with a disability of materials especially formatted for that disability." The new regulation allows libraries to charge for additional services. I believe that the different library boards should be granted complete discretionary powers in determining what user fees they should levy and for what services beyond those stipulated in the Municipal Act. This view is consonant with the direction of this government to give complete control over libraries to local municipal governments. Any excesses or deviations can always be held in check by the elected members of municipal councils.

The treatment of human resources: Public sector systems are service-based organizations whose most important assets are the individual human beings that deliver the services. It is imperative that during times of rapid institutional reform every effort be made to reduce the negative impact such change may have on all organizational participants. We are living through times of unprecedented, rapid change.

Technological developments and innovations, which are facilitating downsizing initiatives in both the private and public sectors, are not generating the millions of spinoff jobs that had been predicted in the early 1980s. Instead, an opposite phenomenon is occurring; namely, traditional labour markets are significantly shrinking, causing havoc in the lives of millions of displaced, marginalized workers and contributing considerably to the high unemployment rate we are presently experiencing.

We have reached a point in history when large corporations and public sector organizations must act more responsibly when dealing with their human resources during times of organizational change and restructuring. They must realize that their employees are also consumers, taxpayers, human beings and important partners in the successful management of our economic life. The government must strive to make its human resources part of the solution to its restructuring process.

With respect to Bill 109, as well as in the implementation of other reform legislation on the agenda of this government, it is hoped that the affected human resources be treated with respect, equity and with the utmost consideration as we proceed to fine-tune and restructure our institutions. It is hoped that the consolidation of union and non-union employees in the newly created library board for the city of Toronto and in other large jurisdictions in the province will be conducted with a view to ensuring that the seniority and benefits of employees are protected and system dysfunctions kept to a minimum.

At the end of the day, when everything is said and done with respect to the proposed institutional reforms, what is of paramount importance is that the people of Ontario, in the roles of either service providers, library clients, taxpayers and/or stakeholders in the future of this great province, feel that their respective interests have been dealt with fairly and equitably. The government has an opportunity to demonstrate that people do count and constitute an essential variable in the political and economic equations aimed at bringing about more efficient and effective government in the province.

With respect to the Ontario library network and other links, I was pleased to read about the government's intention to continue its involvement and funding of the Ontario library network and of its initiatives to refine and expand our electronic links to global networks of information. These support initiatives will greatly enhance the capacity of our library systems and, by the same token, of all Ontarians to have access to the most current information available worldwide. The next logical step is to complete the internal provincial links by directly connecting our primary and secondary schools electronically, not only to these global links but to our library systems as well.

Finally, I am impressed with the extent of this government's legislative agenda and in particular with the direction Bill 109 is taking in its reform of our library system. I am confident that the government will act equally judiciously with respect to other bills. While short time lines are the order of the day in rapidly changing environments, it is the ability of decision-makers to respond quickly to change by modifying their goals and repertoire of strategies and tactics that will in the end ensure survival and thus provide another opportunity to reset the time frames.

The successful navigation of this province and its people through this extensive agenda of legislative reforms in an already turbulent sea of technological and social change requires immense reserves of resilience and steadfastness not only to set goals but also to people. It is hoped that this government will continue to demonstrate these qualities while achieving its agenda.

The Chair: Thank you very much, sir. We only have about a minute for questions, so I'm going to give that to Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much, Mr Fiorino. Clearly, you approve of what's going on with Bill 109, but generally the government's agenda. You've been here for part of the afternoon. Have you heard any other --

Mr Fiorino: I only got here about an hour ago, so I was not available during the afternoon.

Mr Gravelle: Do you have any comments in terms of Bill 109 about how it might affect libraries outside Toronto? You obviously were talking in terms of Metro Toronto. I'd be curious as to your thoughts in terms of the library system outside Toronto.

Mr Fiorino: Just as it has been in the past, the major responsibility will be with the municipal councils. As someone who has sat on the library board within Metro, I realize that at the end of the day the key players on the library board were the members representing the local council. This will not change drastically with the passage of Bill 109. Consequently, I think it will be up to the local municipal governments to prioritize and to decide for themselves how much should be allocated to the budget to meet the library needs.

What Bill 103 does, especially within Metropolitan Toronto, is provide the vehicles for the mobilization of local advocacy groups to provide input in terms of the decision-making process at the municipal level.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Fiorino, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

1740

PICKERING PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Jill Foster please come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Jill Foster: My name is Jill Foster. I'm chairman of the Pickering Public Library board of trustees. I'm here to plead for changes to Bill 109 regarding local control of public libraries, revisions that will protect and enhance library service in Ontario.

Let me tell you a story about one of our 60,000 customers in Pickering, a municipality of some 80,000 people. Miranda Pheasant -- it's not her real name; I've changed her name for reasons of privacy; I'm sure you'll understand -- is 16 years old. She uses the library to research school projects on CD-ROM and through the Internet, to borrow books and videos -- all the usual things one would expect and hope a teenager would do. Miranda's parents run a small business in our community. They use our library service to do research for their company, to keep up-to-date on the latest developments. And of course the whole family reads for pleasure.

A few weeks ago Miranda's parents visited our library CEO, Sandy Cameron. They wanted to thank the library system. They told him how important the library is to Miranda and to them. You see, Miranda is a typical teen, but she is confined to a wheelchair. Her parents credit the public library for opening up a world of possibilities to their daughter. It is a place where she can meet members of her community and share, on an equal footing, all that is happening in the world around her. For that, the Pheasants are extremely grateful.

This is what local public libraries should be. In a world of shopping malls, cocooning and commuter lifestyle, it is the last community space, a community place where you can share information, meet a neighbour, introduce a child to a new book and find out the answer to whatever question is on your mind. Barriers of physical ability, geographic location and financial means have no standing at the public library today.

Imagine a world where Miranda and her parents can only access some information. Imagine a library where data on the latest developments in the Pheasants' therapy business are available only through electronic means, so they have to pay. Imagine a library where obtaining the librarian's assistance in research has a pricetag. Imagine a system where the quality and breadth of Miranda's research for school projects is limited by how much money she has in her pocket.

Bill 109 includes a statement of purpose that celebrates the public library's traditional egalitarian values and inclusiveness. The purpose statement is clear and helpful. Its underlying spirit implies that Miranda and her parents may continue to use the library for their educational, research and recreational needs, but Bill 109 stops short of ensuring that they will have access to all the information and assistance they may require. The reason I am here today is to ask for revisions to the new act that can only strengthen the resolve of that purpose statement.

Last week an important new initiative for Ontario public libraries was launched. As you've heard already today, Network 2000 is a partnership between the private sector, the public library community and relevant provincial ministries. Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation Deputy Minister Naomi Alboim addressed the crowd on behalf of Minister Marilyn Mushinski, who was tied up with legislative affairs last week, as you all were and continue to be.

Ms Alboim stated, "In this age of high-technology and knowledge-based economies, Network 2000 will help place our library community firmly on the leading edge in providing electronic information." She went on to say on behalf of the minister: "As a part of our new focus, we are placing great emphasis on library networks such as this one. We want to make the networks even more accessible and more useful to library users." Indeed, an accessible electronic highway is a fundamental requirement for the development of the province-wide long-term library strategy called One Place to Look.

We can all agree that the electronic delivery of information is here to stay. One might successfully argue that the Internet will have as profound an effect on the dissemination and delivery of information as Gutenberg's printing press did 500 years ago. Many government documents and research are now available solely through electronic means. It is essential that our public libraries stay in the forefront of that technology. That is why last week's Network 2000 launch is so important.

Having accepted all these truths to be self-evident, I am at a loss to understand why the new library act excludes electronic information and basic user assistance in its definition of free core services.

In that same speech I referred to, the deputy minister asserted the ministry's view that "In our new information age, libraries have indeed become far more than the repositories of books they were a century ago." She went on to underscore the importance of our public libraries and these new technologies: "This way...the libraries of the future will continue to play a key role in nourishing Ontario's well-educated and literate workforce...indeed, one of our greatest assets."

Clearly, the minister and Ms Alboim understand the important role public libraries play in individual and economic growth for Ontario. All levels of government are looking for ways to increase employment. Men and women expect to retrain for several jobs over their careers. The number of people employed by small businesses is growing. More and more people are self-employed.

According to research conducted by AST Computer Inc, a member group of Network 2000, there is a minimum of 100,000 small home offices called SOHOs -- that's for small office, home office -- in Ontario today. AST estimates that each SOHO uses approximately $500 worth of value from public libraries per year. We could charge such users and make it harder still for these men and women to make a go of their businesses, or we can find the means to help them and fuel Ontario's economy in the process.

As taxpayers, we understand the need to reduce government costs. We must find more efficient and effective way of doing things. We must decide which services have priority and agree to protect them.

Two years ago, the public libraries in Durham region began meeting to discuss, among other things, partnerships to cut costs. Other Ontario municipalities have negotiated shared space and staffing with local boards of education. The combined public and school libraries in Oakville, Etobicoke and Cambridge are excellent models for making the tax dollar go farther. They have also demonstrated that public libraries operate best when they are not isolated and insulated by municipal borders.

Partnerships such as these between various municipalities and levels of government, as well as Network 2000 partnerships with the corporate sector, are examples we can use. They provide a framework for the future that does not challenge the basic principles of the public library system as we have known it.

Ontario's public libraries are the province's informal education system. They provide the basic infrastructure needed to share information. The electronic highway envisioned in the One Place to Look strategy, and promised with the launch of Network 2000, are vital components in a province-wide communications system. This system will provide increased and improved access to information that will not only give us a competitive edge in a knowledge-based economy, it will connect us to the world.

This is an ambitious and exciting vision, a vision of all communities across Ontario linked together through the public library system; individuals in even the smallest village able to access the latest information through the local library; electronic links with school libraries. It's a breathtaking possibility. Let's not build barriers against such a dream. If individual municipalities are able to charge for the use of electronic information, then there will be some citizens who cannot be part of this future -- another hurdle for our neediest citizens to jump. That is why I believe that access to electronic information and basic reference service must be included in the definition of core services that will remain free.

I also agree with the view that a system of provincial grants must be maintained so that all communities in Ontario can have equal access to our dream. Here is what we need: free access to information -- information in any format -- and a top-notch communication system. These are essential tools to help Ontarians compete in the world economy. It is a service we have the means to provide and we can provide it in every corner of the province.

1750

Local libraries, run by volunteer boards, truly can be the community place where Miranda and her parents can join their neighbours, read a book or reach out to the world beyond. Local libraries that include books, vertical files, pamphlets and CD-ROM and the Internet can provide nine-year-old Emma and every other grade 4 student with enough information material to research medieval castles. At the same time, they can provide her mother with the information she needs to write a résumé, plan a job proposal or research how many other districts have managed a particular problem.

Local libraries must provide that vital link within the community and the world beyond. There can be no other future for libraries in today's fast-paced, knowledge-based society.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We have just a minute and a half for questions, so that goes to Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. I like the way you connected the story to what's happening here, because it is connected. It has to be connected. If it's not connected, what we're about here is a farce, and I think you were very effective in making the point that if we're going to take advantage of all these exciting things we are already developing, we need to make sure people can access it so it can reach its potential.

It's interesting that your concern echoes the concern raised earlier today by the Ontario Public Libraries Strategic Directions Council. They're the people who were charged with putting this together. They were the people this government invested in to develop this new technology and to imagine what the year 2000 might be like if we're really plugged in. Earlier, it was referenced that there was a healthy investment made. It seems to me that if we don't allow further access and if we cut back, the way we are in this bill, on the operating money for libraries to actually use this, it's all for naught. What would your position on that be?

Ms Foster: My position on the fact that there is already money invested?

Mr Martin: And that we're now going to put impediments in the way of people actually participating.

Ms Foster: I think I've been very clear on what my position would be. I believe that access to information in any form is an imperative, as many of the speakers I've heard this afternoon have suggested. We are moving into a new age and information will be available electronically, more readily perhaps than in any other form in the future, certainly more quickly. To limit access to that information I believe is shortsighted, and I believe we'll be sitting here in a few years re-examining that position just because of the nature of the world we live in.

I'm sure that all of our experience on the day to day is that we use more and more frequently e-mail, the Internet, all of those things. It is no different in the public library, nor should it be. I would even go so far as to suggest it's the one place where we should be in the forefront with that kind of technology to allow all our citizens access to those kinds of things that can put us in the forefront of the world economy.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Foster, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

EAST YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would the member from the East York Public Library please come forward? Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Bill Buckingham: Thank you, Mr Chair. I assume all members of the committee have been given the brief on behalf of the East York Public Library board and our 55,000 cardholders. I guess, speaking this late in the day, you've probably heard it all.

Mr Flaherty: It's early for us.

Mr Buckingham: Midday then. You've probably heard many of the positions that the East York Public Library is going to take, so there's probably not a lot of new information we bring forward, but, in summary, there are three things we would like the committee to consider with respect to Bill 109: (1) that operating grants to the Ontario public libraries be retained; (2) that freedom of access to all library materials be guaranteed; and (3) that the volunteer citizen-majority library boards be mandated.

I go back to a situation a couple of years ago, when I did extensive travelling in the US. At the point when I was down there, Fortune magazine came out with an article and rated all municipalities in the world as to what balance they have between the existence of economic conditions for business to flourish and the quality of life of the population of the municipalities. I was very pleased when it came out, being in that environment, to see Toronto rated number one in the world in this respect. The current situation as of last year when they did it was that Toronto was world-class. More than world-class; we outranked everyone.

I think the Toronto Metro libraries had a part in that situation where we were rated number one. Certainly the libraries promote lifelong learning and that enhances our businesses, many of which are now competing globally. Certainly quality of life to the citizens of Toronto -- and I don't say the city of Toronto or even Metro Toronto; I almost refer to it as the GTA -- with the different services that we now offer through public libraries and programs, we have contributed to the quality of life of the population.

Many members of the committee here, in your previous lives before you came to Queen's Park, have had municipal experiences and school board experiences. Out of the 14 permanent committee members, six of you have had municipal experience and three school board experience, so I'm sure you're familiar with the value of municipal library boards in your different communities.

It's somewhat inconsistent, I think, that at this point -- thinking back probably to when you decided to run for public office, to seek the nominations of your respective parties, did you decide: "Yes, I want to get to Queen's Park and one of my priorities is to abandon the Ontario public library system. Let's cut the funding. Let's establish restrictions of access and let's potentially kick all the citizen appointments off the boards. Let's radically change a system that's worked well for a hundred years"? I don't think any of you can really say that's one of the priorities you had when you decided to come to Queen's Park. So I ask, what's gone wrong? Where have things gone off the tracks for members of the committee and potentially the Legislature?

Let's take a couple of our positions. I'll refer to funding. The provincial government probably funds a very small percentage of the overall operating budget. In the case of East York it's only 7%, or $200,000. That comes after a 10% reduction since 1993. During the times of economic hardship we have experienced throughout the 1990s, we have seen that as the economy gets tougher, our circulation and the demand for libraries increase. So our circulation has gone up in this time. We're just barely holding together now. A further 7%, in our case $200,000 of the millions of dollars you want to take out of the provincial funding, will be very tough on our community, and I'm sure as you travel the province, you're going to find out many communities are in the same boat as the borough of East York.

You might say: "It's not that much. It's only 7%. You can find that. We're not a great contributor to the library budgets right now anyway." I want to just offer my perspective on setting budgets. I was on municipal council in East York for two terms. I was chair of the budget subcommittee, so I've known all about trying to balance budgets and trying to put all the competing demands and match that to revenue base, which doesn't seem to be growing much these days.

The numbers are smaller in our municipality, in East York, but the principles remain the same. We had a budget of $55 million and we gave $60,000 to different organizations -- sports groups, social services -- none of which got probably more than 10% of the overall budget. So it wasn't critical that we gave them the money; they would have survived somehow. But it gave a statement. The statement was the municipal council, in this case the government of Ontario, gave moneys to these organizations because they valued what they do.

1800

I'm suggesting that the Legislature, the government of Ontario, should continue direct funding to libraries because they value what they do in their own right. They deliver something to the citizens. Everyone at our council at that point was of the same opinion. We did what we could. One of my committee members at that point left to go on to other pastures. He was Mayor Dave Johnson; he's now Minister Dave Johnson in the government. That's the way we operated in East York. We operated that times were tough, money was scarce, but what we valued we gave money directly to.

I'm suggesting if you value public libraries for their own sake, what they've contributed to this province for a hundred years, you continue direct grants to libraries. You might say, "Let's cut the grants and put in some user fees." I think this government, in fact the Legislature, should value equality of opportunity. Why put restrictions on the opportunity for those to read, to learn and for the opportunity of personal growth? I think user fees are the wrong way to go. You might say that you're guaranteeing all print materials, but in the 1990s there are lots of materials that we offer in public libraries throughout the province that are non-print, as technology changes. So it's really, do you value equality of access to information?

Third is the issue of governance. There have been citizen appointments to libraries of Ontario for over 100 years. The act is somewhat deficient in that it doesn't give any guidelines. It says, "There shall be a board." There's no structure. Right now, there's a minimum of 9, I believe, and a maximum of 15. It's saying: "Let every municipality go its own route. Do what you can." Maybe some will value it; maybe some won't. We would like to ask for an amendment that guarantees that citizen volunteers constitute the majority of members of the library board. For those who are encouraging volunteerism throughout the province of Ontario, and I hear it many times from the Legislature, I think it's inconsistent with what you're trying to do, encouraging volunteers, especially in the social service groups.

I might say the argument that says we need to put a majority of councillors or municipal appointments from the elected council on the board to guarantee wise expenditures -- right now control of the budget exists, on a line-by-line basis if necessary. In East York our board has appointed one or two members of council out of nine, and it has worked well. I think we have delivered, from my perspective, value to our citizens and I feel that just abandoning the citizen appointments is not the right way to go.

Mr Chair, as I said, it's a long day. I said it was almost over. I was corrected; it's only half over. That's the extent of our deputation. We have issued a position paper, a brief that came through our board, but I just wanted to elaborate on why we feel there are three important amendments that should be made by this legislative committee.

Mr Gravelle: Mr Buckingham, thank you very much. I think you really hit the nail on the head in terms of the whole concept of value. By basically not supporting the libraries in any form at all in terms of provincial involvement financially, there's a statement. You can't deny it. As you stated also, at the beginning of the process too, you take something that absolutely works and is number one and then you just sort of pull it apart.

I think it's important, as you probably realize -- I don't know what time you got here, but there has been a pretty common theme in terms of the major recommendations or amendments that have been made by the presenters today. I think certainly the point is being well made and I hope is being listened to by the government members. I was struck particularly by your whole sense in terms of imparting value. I thank you for that and for making the point. If there's anything more you want to say in that regard, I think it would be useful. We've just got to make that point as strongly as we can.

Mr Buckingham: Thank you, Mr Gravelle. The only thing I'd like to add is that a government structures itself either by what functions have been given to it by the Constitution or what sort of things you value to deliver to the population. If you don't value libraries and if you don't value culture and recreation and things like that, I ask, why have a ministry? Why put that infrastructure in place?

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. Given the focus of your presentation and the recommendations, it is good that you're the last presenter today, because you sum up what I think we've heard today. We heard a number of really serious and well-prepared presentations. We heard stories from people, we heard some really exciting technical presentations, we heard from folks directly involved in delivery of library services, and all of them had a fairly common concern. We also know that there is a whole pile of people out there in Toronto who didn't get to come today, so you're speaking on their behalf.

We made a motion this morning -- Mr Gravelle presented it, and I supported it -- to extend these hearings for another day so we could hear from some other people. From what I understand, there were 68 requests made to present here in Toronto, and we were able to accommodate only about 27 of those. There is some genuinely sincere and widespread concern about this issue out there, because libraries, like hospitals and schools, in communities are vital to the health and wellbeing of those communities. I want to thank you for coming.

Mr Flaherty: Thank you, Mr Buckingham, for the presentation this afternoon. We heard a lot about that Fortune magazine article in the Bill 103 hearings. I don't think the article mentioned East York, which I mention parenthetically; it was Toronto that was referred to.

Having said that, when you say if we value something, "we" being the government of the province of Ontario, we should pay for it or we should contribute to it, I have a lot of trouble with that, because there are all kinds of services that municipalities are responsible for in Ontario that we value and that we don't pay for: police services, fire services, water services and so on. So I think that can't be the applicable test, because I hope municipalities are not delivering any services that are valueless or that we would not value at the provincial level.

More important, though, I'm looking at the big picture. When I look at the history of libraries and the development of libraries in Upper Canada and then in the province of Ontario, what I see is originally libraries developing in the school system -- it wasn't a system -- in the little schools. Ryerson promoted that in the middle of the last century. Then we move in the latter part of the last century, the 19th century, into free public libraries, the first bill, which did not pass, having been introduced in 1852 by a Conservative in this Legislature, and subsequently in 1882 the first public act passing. But the history from that time forward all through this century, more than 100 years now, is of municipally controlled public libraries; not provincially controlled, but a municipal system, municipal governance, municipal funding, and that is what this act enhances, it seems to me.

If municipalities are paying more than 85% of the cost on average in the province, 93% you say in East York, if municipalities are responsible for their local libraries in the budgetary way, as they have been and will remain, then I'm sorry, I can't follow your logic that somehow the province should impose on municipalities various standards with respect to the nature of the composition of the board.

The Chair: Mr Flaherty, would you wrap up.

Mr Flaherty: It seems to me if they're paying the bill, the municipalities should be making those decisions, not that you couldn't make those submissions to East York council, that you should do this or you should do that or you should continue with independent citizen members or whatever. It seems to me that's the level of government those concerns should be addressed to.

Mr Buckingham: Of course we have extensive conversations over budget times and an ongoing, very close relationship between the library board and East York council. It has worked well in East York, and I think as you go around the province you're going to see that Ontario public library boards and the respective local councils have worked well. I'm asking, what is the necessity to change what has worked well? We've had 100 years of things that have delivered services, have delivered value.

For 100 years the province has said, "Yes, we give a certain percentage" -- a small percentage, but a certain percentage -- "directly to library boards." It's what has happened, surely. It's the household grants. I've been there on the library board and I've been there on municipal council, and I've seen it from both sides. Out of 100 years, sir, your party has been in power a lot of that time. Until this year the government of the day and the Progressive Conservative Party have continued to support libraries in this way. What has changed in 1996 to break that tradition?

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Buckingham, for coming forward and making your presentation today.

The committee is going to be in recess until tomorrow at 9 am.

The committee adjourned at 1813.