Transcription du comité 1997-avril-08 | 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

London Public Library

Ms Anne Marie DeCicco

Mr Reed Osborne

Chief Executives of Large Public Libraries of Ontario

Mr Reed Osborne

Administrators of Small Public Libraries of Ontario

Ms Barbara Taylor

City of London

Mr Grant Hopcroft

Mr Joe Swan

Stratford Public Library

Mr Harry Nesbitt

Ms Jane Kirkpatrick

Administrators of Medium-Sized Public Libraries of Ontario

Ms Wendy Newman

Kitchener Public Library; Waterloo Public Library

Mr Bruce MacNeil

Mr Ron Eydt

Mr Eric Bow

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 217

Mr Michael Robertson

Mr John Martel

Oxford County Library

Mr Trevor Cuthbert

Middlesex County Library

Mrs Margaret Rule

County and Regional Municipality Librarians

Mr Ed George

Mr Bill Armstrong; Mrs Martha Joyce

Woodstock Public Library

Ms Patricia Moody

Mr Stephen Nelson

Ontario College and University Library Association

Ms Susan Moskal

Urban League of London

Mrs Susan Russell

Ms Lee Walker Evans

Mr Keith Oliver

Kent County Library

Ms Helene Thompson

Friends of the London Public Library

Ms Viola Poletes

Cambridge Public Library

Mr Dave Scott

St Thomas Public Library

Mr Rick Pargeter

City of St Thomas

Ms Helen Schram

Bruce County Public Library

Mr Tom Boyle

Mr Marzio Apolloni

Chatham Public Library

Mr Hugh Thomas

Windsor Public Library

Mr Barry Fowler

Ontario School Library Association

Mr Reg Deneau

Whitchurch-Stouffville Public Library

Mr Mark Dewar

Town of Huntsville

Mr Michael Garvey

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:

Mr TonyMartin (Sault Ste Marie ND)

Mr DerwynShea (High Park-Swansea PC)

Mr TonySkarica (Wentworth North PC)

Clerk Pro Tem /

Greffière par intérim: Ms Donna Bryce

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

The committee met at 0900 in the London Convention Centre, London.

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.

LONDON PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair (Mr Bart Maves): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the standing committee on general government and consideration of Bill 109. It's nice to be in London.

Our first presentation this morning comes from the folks of the London Public Library board. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes this morning to make a presentation. If there is some time left at the end of your presentation, I'll try to divide it among the three caucuses so that they might ask some questions.

Ms Anne Marie DeCicco: Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity for being here. My name is Anne Marie DeCicco. I'm the chair of the London Public Library board and also one of two members of city council who were appointed to the board. With me is our vice-chair of the library board, Quintin Lang, and our chief executive officer, Mr Reed Osborne.

We appreciate the opportunity to address Bill 109 on behalf of the board and we would like to begin by addressing the issue of bylaws and governance. Section 6 of Bill 109 specifies the content of the municipal public library bylaw. The London Public Library board supports the provision to retain library boards and is pleased that the contribution of volunteer board members continues to be valued by the government.

Bill 109 has as its goal the devolution of control of public libraries from the provincial level of government. In achieving this goal, part I of the Public Libraries Act, 1984, is largely repealed and most of the content of part I is transferred to local government to deal with as it wishes. Although this is consistent with the theme of Bill 109, we suggest that in the repeal of part I valuable features that enhance open governance are lost. These include: board size and composition; the provisions for qualification and disqualification of board members; and the requirement to advertise board vacancies. I would like to address each part individually and briefly.

On the first: In our contact with other library boards and CEOs, we note that there is a great deal of concern that councils may circumvent the spirit of the legislation by appointing only councillors to library boards or by designating council or an arm of the civic administration as the board. These fears might be readily allayed by stipulating board size and requiring majority citizen representation.

The enormous community usage of libraries, the high volunteer participation and the great importance our clients place on their libraries are all compelling reasons for legislatively guaranteeing majority citizen representation on true governing boards.

On the second issue: The legislation would allow municipalities to determine the qualifications and circumstances for disqualification of board members. Section 10 of the 1984 act covers qualifications of board members. For example, there should surely be no debate over the exclusion of municipal or board employees from board membership. Section 13 of the 1984 act lists the circumstances under which a board member's seat may be forfeit. It provides simple, prudent guidelines that ought to apply universally to library boards. It's recommended that sections 10 and 13 of the Public Libraries Act be retained.

On the third issue: Also lost in the repeal of part I of the 1984 act is section 2(1), which is the notice of vacancies. It requires appointing municipalities to advertise notice of vacancies on a board. This language was included in the 1984 legislation in response to reports of widespread abuse by municipalities that used board appointments as patronage plums available to only a few. We recommended that Bill 109 require municipalities to advertise board vacancies.

The purpose of the new legislation is to "successfully provide for Ontarians' information needs," support their requirement for "access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society," and to allow them access to benefit from local, provincial and global network information systems through a province-wide library network. Clearly the province continues to have an interest in Ontario's public library system, which is acknowledged as being among the best in the world. This interest requires continuing provincial guidelines for the governance of this valued service.

Section 10 of the legislation outlines the powers and duties of a board. We are pleased to see that a board may continue to "operate special services in connection with q library as it considers necessary." This language is now more desirable than ever as it provides legislative support for libraries that seek to operate food and beverage services, bookstores or other revenue-generating services. Similarly, section 10(k) provides the legislated ability to establish operating partnerships, cooperative ventures, alliances or services contracted with other publicly funded libraries. The minister is to be commended for encouraging such partnerships within the context of the legislation.

On the issue of fees: Section 14 of Bill 109, which allows boards to charge fees in accordance with the Municipal Act and its regulations, represents a 180-degree turnaround from the position of the 1984 act. The London Public Library board reiterates its opposition to user fees. The board remains steadfast to the century-old mandate of access to information and knowledge without barriers to the less affluent.

Ontario regulation 26/96 under the Municipal Act will permit the imposition of charges for library collections by format. The historical experience of fees for specific media format is not encouraging. Through the experience of charges for lending films and videotapes, the trivial amounts of revenue raised failed to outweigh the costs of overhead. Fees for material by format simply do not make business sense.

Further to that, fees exacted for borrowing specific types of specially formatted material imposes a burden on those people who may learn most effectively through formats other than traditional print. Information comes in many packages or formats, but the regulation distinguishes among formats with no rationale given.

The legislation encourages public libraries to work cooperatively with other publicly funded libraries. A public library fee policy imposed by a council could needlessly complicate a partnership with a merged public school library by creating a system where students are not charged but the general public is. Furthermore, acknowledging that public libraries must support Ontarians in a knowledge-based society, it is clearly evident that the knowledge base is rapidly becoming predominately electronic-based, not print-based.

On the issue of confidentiality of records: The repeal of Section 28 of the 1984 act is a matter of concern to the library community. The board has secured a legal opinion advising that subsection 28(1)(v) protecting individual library records from disclosure is not covered in other provincial freedom of information legislation. This is a long-fought-for and hard-won provision of the 1984 act. The confidentiality of library borrowing records is an important ethical issue to boards, librarians and library clients. It is dismaying to lose this provision. We believe library records should remain confidential to protect freedom of thought and individual privacy.

We commend the minister for including section 2, which is the purpose or preamble. This section acknowledges Ontarians' information needs in a knowledge-based society and the importance of a province-wide public library network. This is an important defining addition to the legislation. The purpose affirms that the province has an interest in literacy and equal access to information.

On the issue of grants: Over a period of many years, our board has watched with great frustration the continuing decline of the provincial per household grant for library service as a proportion of local library revenue. We acknowledge that libraries are a local service. We acknowledge that the concept of disentanglement has an allure for those who would simplify the complexity of public service. We also agree with the Who Does What panel "that the province has a fundamental interest in literacy and equal access to information for all Ontario residents."

Certainly the local level is best placed to manage and operate libraries. However, there are broader concepts of service: intellectual freedom and open access, which require the committed involvement of the senior level of government. The London Public Library board believes the provincial interest must extend beyond the creation and maintenance of networks through interlibrary loan and a provincially supported technology infrastructure. The province has an important leadership role to support research, special projects and grants.

Bill 109 appears to endorse this view by the inclusion of a stirring preamble in the legislation. We would suggest that the preamble would carry more moral authority if backed up by financial support. It's recommended that section 30 of the Public Libraries Act be retained, providing for grants to public library boards and that the provincial per household grant continue to be made.

The government has supported volunteer involvement and clear and open governing structures, so in summarizing our seven recommendations, we would like to close by repeating those principles:

That the library legislation specify the minimum board size and require majority citizen representation.

That section 10(1) and 13 of the Public Libraries Act be retained.

That Bill 109 require municipalities to advertise board vacancies.

That the provision for partnership ventures should not be restricted to "in the community."

That section 23 of the Public Libraries Act, 1984, and regulation 976 pursuant to that act be retained unaltered.

That section 28 of the Public Libraries Act be retained.

Finally, we recommended that section 30 of the Public Libraries Act be retained, providing for grants to public library boards and that the provincial per household grant continue to be made.

We thank you for allowing the opportunity to the London Public Library board to be heard this morning and we're open to any questions you might have.

0910

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Thank you for making a presentation. There are a number of issues I'd love to get to but the one that interests me particularly, because it came up yesterday, is the repeal of section 28. Can you think of any reason why it would be taken out? It seems like an odd omission because it seems like something that should be a basic right. Have you got any thoughts on that?

Ms DeCicco: Our chief executive officer might have some further thoughts on that.

Mr Reed Osborne: I was a little puzzled as to why it might be removed because our understanding from our legal adviser is that it's not necessarily covered in other freedom of information legislation. Looking at the bill, there seemed to be a general repeal of part I of the Public Libraries Act. I certainly haven't heard an explanation from the ministry or the ministry staff as to why that particular section also came out as well. It just seems to me that the entire part I was removed.

Mr Gravelle: So this may be something that was taken out but shouldn't have been? It does seem odd. Perhaps I'll ask the parliamentary assistant afterwards why that is the case.

The whole issue of core services is interesting, and it came up frequently yesterday as well. We're certainly moving to a non-print format for a number of things, and I presume that's the case with the London Public Library board as well. We were told yesterday, for example, that a lot of newspapers come through in electronic format; they aren't in print format any more. Would you say the definition of protecting core services has to be redefined?

Ms DeCicco: I think that's probably a good way of looking at it. The library board in London has been moving forward to try to bring ourselves up to date as much as we possibly can, and there's no question that using an electronic format is something we're going to move more and more towards. I think you'll hear in other presentations today from groups just in London that are concerned about library services. That's a really big issue for them. Just because you're not charging for a book, that may not be your central form of getting information in the future. If that's sort of the tradeoff, it really doesn't make a lot of sense, so a redefinition might be the best way to look at that.

Mr Gravelle: Because the world is truly changing, isn't it?

Ms DeCicco: Yes, very quickly.

Mr Gravelle: Protecting core services certainly sounds like a good idea, but it all comes down to the definition of "core," because in the future it's going to just be more and more the case on electronic format.

Ms DeCicco: I agree.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): The issue of confidentiality: I'm intrigued with what you tell me your solicitor has told you, because it is the understanding of the minister and the ministry officials that the municipality freedom of information act does indeed apply very effectively to libraries. I wonder if you could tell me, on what basis did your solicitor indicate that is not the case?

Mr Osborne: Our solicitor did not go into it in great detail for me but certainly he indicated that the provisions in the Public Libraries Act, section 28, were not necessarily covered in other forms of legislation and certainly not in the same kind of specificity. I would point out as a practising chief librarian that this is a portion of the legislation that is very important to us. It is something we impress on all our employees, and certainly every new employee who comes to work for us. We let them know in very clear terms that the borrowing records of the people using our library are very private and confidential information. We're lending information on matters of health, the legal system, all kinds of private information, so this is a crucial part of library service.

Mr Shea: I understand, and you obviously impress upon your new employees the significance and the terms of the freedom of information act, do you?

Mr Osborne: Yes, indeed.

Mr Shea: Fine. I wanted to anticipate Mr Gravelle's question, because that is the position, but I would welcome written comments from your solicitor if your solicitor has some other points of view. I'm sure our solicitors would be happy to receive them. But I want to give you some comfort in that regard, that the freedom of information act is very applicable to libraries.

Ms DeCicco: We can undertake to get that information for you.

Mr Shea: I would be happy to receive that. In terms of the policies of London council, may I just ask you, what is the current council policy in advertising for vacancies?

Ms DeCicco: We advertise city-wide any time there are vacancies so that is something we are not unaccustomed to doing, but we want to make sure that it's in here so that doesn't change.

Mr Shea: So you would want the province to direct you to do that rather than the municipality exercising its ministry in sort of saying, "That will be in fact our policy."

Ms DeCicco: I can tell you in terms of city council that we would probably do it regardless, but I think there is some comfort for anybody in the community who may have a concern about that that it's written within the legislation.

Mr Shea: Is there a --

The Chair: We're coming to the end of the time. I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation this morning.

Mr Gravelle: I would like to make a request to the parliamentary assistant, if he could provide a rationale for why section 28 was removed, when it's becoming clear that this is something that seems to be viewed as an important element. I certainly can understand why the confidentiality is important. In that we've heard this twice, I would ask him if he --

Mr Shea: Chairman, I'm very happy. We'll give a very brief note to you, Mr Gravelle. Happy to do that. In fact I was trying to give you some indication in my questioning of the position of the ministry, that the freedom of information act really does apply and in fact takes precedence over any other act at this point. Happy to give you that information.

Mr Gravelle: It still seems odd to remove a section --

The Chair: Gentlemen, I'm not going to entertain debate.

Mr Shea: Although you do understand that sometimes legislation precedes other legislation.

The Chair: Gentlemen, I won't entertain debate. A point of order was made and a request was made, which was in order, so we'll allow that.

CHIEF EXECUTIVES OF LARGE PUBLIC LIBRARIES OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Mr Osborne stays as our next presenter. Mr Osborne, I'll allow you to make your presentation, but just so that everyone in the committee realizes this, we only allow an individual to take part in one presentation. We can get into several things where someone will represent a national body, then a local, then an individual and so on, so we restrict people to only representing once. You didn't have a large part in the first presentation so I'm going to allow you to make yours today. I just think it fair that I say that at the outset in case this happens again, so committee members will know if I rule in a different fashion.

Mr Osborne: Thank you very much for your indulgence, Mr Chairman.

The Chief Executives of Large Public Libraries of Ontario, CELPLO, are the library CEOs in Ontario municipalities serving more than 100,000 population. Our 25 libraries serve 5.5 million Ontarians, over half the population of the province.

Ontarians use libraries for a host of business and personal reasons 70 million times annually: 43 million or 60% of these transactions occur in CELPLO libraries; likewise, 60% of circulation and 70% of Ontario's library information requests happen in those larger libraries.

As chief executives of public libraries, our membership is committed to public service, managerial excellence and efficient, effective service provided at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer. The question of governance is central to the success of these themes.

The board model has worked well for Ontario's public libraries, and CELPLO is pleased to see that boards are retained in Bill 109. The appointment of volunteer citizens, people of stature and accomplishment in their community, is undeniably a factor in the success of Ontario's public libraries. A strong citizen-based board is a community advocate for library service, and we want to keep these boards prominent and effective

There is some concern among our members that token boards consisting, perhaps, of just the mayor or the municipal CAO could be appointed under Bill 109. CELPLO urges the committee to amend Bill 109 to ensure that true governing boards, including citizen representation, are created. True governing boards appear to be the intention of Bill 109; however, the most basic framework of board composition is missing. It is suggested the committee might be guided by the Ontario Corporations Act, which provides for a minimum of three members on a board of directors.

Our first recommendation, therefore, is that Bill 109 be amended to establish the minimum size of a board, that such a board be consistent with the Corporations Act and, further, require the presence of citizen representation.

0920

The second issue I want to talk about is financial support. Over a period of many years, our membership has watched with disappointment the continuing decline of the provincial household grant for library service as a proportion of local library revenue. We acknowledge that libraries are a local service and that the local level is best placed to manage and operate libraries. We acknowledge that the concept of disentanglement has an appeal for those who would simplify the complexity of public service.

However, we also agree with the Who Does What panel "that the province has a fundamental interest in literacy and equal access to information for all Ontario residents." Literacy, equal access and the educational role of libraries are the broader concepts of service that require the committed involvement of the senior level of government.

Bill 109 appears to endorse this view by the inclusion of a stirring preamble in the legislation. We would suggest that the sentiments of the preamble would carry more authority if backed by financial support. Bill 109 deletes section 30 of the Public Libraries Act which provides for grants to library boards.

Therefore, we're recommending that section 30 of the Public Libraries Act be retained providing for grants to public library boards and that the provincial per household grant continue to be made.

The third issue I wish to address is user fees, also a money issue; you may be discerning a theme here. The issue of user fees has long tormented the library community, and whatever happens with Bill 109 will probably not settle the matter once and for all. As librarians and managers our members have struggled with the dilemma.

As librarians we are committed to universal open access and as librarians we are inspired by the concept of the free public library and many of us see a deep commitment to this ideal in our communities. It is not just an ideal for librarians. As librarians, we feel some hesitation that fees are an unacceptable form of double taxation. We know that fees are not a financial panacea, for there is experience and research to indicate such revenue is often modest. When we do contemplate fees, we do so on the understanding there will be exceptions for those who truly cannot afford to pay. Yet as managers we are trying to restructure and reinvent our institutions in a world of declining resources, and are striving to maximize sources of revenue.

We recognize that fees are an option for revenue generation. Although CELPLO members hold a diversity of opinions on this issue, our association adopted a position some years ago acknowledging that local authorities ought to determine the kind and level of user fees appropriate or acceptable to local circumstances.

Ontario regulation 26 under the Municipal Act is limiting in that it will permit the imposition of charges only for library collections by format. Prior to the promulgation of regulation 976 under the 1984 act, many libraries did charge for the lending of 16mm films, videotapes and other audiovisual materials. Those libraries raised revenue which often failed to outweigh the costs of overhead.

Regulation 26 appears to steer a middle course. By requiring that print materials be provided at no charge, the intention is to satisfy the proponents of the historic free service mandate. By permitting fees in a restricted way, lip-service is paid to the idea that grant cuts can be recovered through fees. This approach will satisfy no one.

Public libraries must continue to support Ontarians in a knowledge-based society. It is clearly evident that the knowledge base is rapidly becoming predominately electronic-based, not print-based. The restriction of fees to information sources reliant on newer technologies is contrary to the spirit of the second purpose of Bill 109.

Fees, fund-raising, sponsorships, partnerships are all potential strategies for reinventing library service. Library boards need flexibility to use any or all of these strategies in whatever combination is of advantage to the local library. Some libraries may choose to develop extensive fee schedules, others may have the resources to fund-raise successfully or develop partnerships that enable them to avoid fees. Still other libraries may determine there is an acceptable mix of fees and fund-raising.

CELPLO believes that in the context of public service evolution and reinvention, in a knowledge-based society, and acknowledging that the definition of library collections as items owned on the premises or items accessed electronically is fast blurring, it is undesirable to restrict the efforts of boards to diversify their funding.

It is therefore recommended that draft regulation 26 under the Municipal Act be withdrawn and that library boards not be restricted in setting charges and fund-raising.

The final issue of the written submission relates to the confidentiality issue which was discussed in the previous presentation and I won't repeat that one here.

Just as a final comment, the library community, I believe, is asking the province to continue to be a partner in library service. The library community is looking to the province for some leadership in library service. It takes more than just a preamble to the legislation to be leadership. It takes involved financial support and it takes guidance in the formation of a local governance structure.

The province is taking an invigorated role in education. I ask you to, and CELPLO asks you to, not forget that the public library is also an important factor in the education system of Ontario.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In many ways your presentation this morning here isn't a whole lot different from what we heard from most of the people who appeared before us yesterday. I thank you for coming and taking the time to prepare and present.

There are a number of things in here that I would like to question you on, but we don't have that kind of time, so I just want to ask you to further clarify your anxiety around the question of governance of libraries and your recommendation here that the presence of boards be somehow enshrined in the legislation. Yesterday we heard from AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and they very clearly stated that they were disappointed that there was still the requirement that there be boards. We gather from that they would prefer that there not be boards. Any opening at all in the act that would allow them then to take advantage and perhaps fold in the administration structure seems to me to be something that they would at least be looking at. Why did you put it in here and what is it in your experience that would suggest that not enshrining it may lead, down the road, to the disappearance of boards?

Mr Osborne: I've been a chief librarian for over 20 years working with boards, all in Ontario, and I've found it a rewarding experience. I've worked with many different boards and I've found that where we have boards of concerned, committed people, people of stature and, yes, influence in the community, we have the best library service.

I've looked at systems in other jurisdictions and I can compare the statistics. Ontario libraries are among the best in North America, if not in the world, and when I compare Ontario libraries with jurisdictions in some US areas and elsewhere in Canada where there are not boards, where libraries are run purely by municipalities, the quality of library service is not the same as it is in Ontario; it is lower.

0930

Mr Shea: Thank you, Mr Osborne, for your presentation. I regret time is always so brief that the questions have to be very selectively asked. With someone of your stature, I would like to spend more time talking about the future of libraries as you see it. You've broached it in your presentation in terms of the blurring between the print and electronic, and I suspect that indeed the challenges for library systems go far beyond that, even to challenge the existence of walls and so forth in the future. But that may be one we can discuss somewhere else.

I'd like to ask you, first of all, what is your opinion of the role of municipalities in libraries? What role should the municipalities have? I listened to you very carefully. You talked about wanting the province to show leadership. That included financial support, the guidance of governance and so forth. What role is there, then, for the local municipalities? Is it to manage what the government puts in place or is there another role for the local government?

Mr Osborne: I think the role of local government is to manage the total resources that the municipality has and to make decisions on priorities of services. The basic goal of a municipality, I've always believed, is to improve the quality of life.

Mr Shea: Right, and insofar as the library is concerned, what would its role be? If we were to pick up on the presentation by your organization and the thrust that the provincial government should provide financial support, the guidance of governance and so forth, what room does that leave for local municipalities to be involved?

Mr Osborne: I think under the current legislation the municipal council has full power over the library budget, not just bottom-line approval of the budget, but line-by-line approval. That was established in a court case upwards of 15 years ago, involving the Aurora Public Library and the Aurora town council.

Mr Shea: That's a pretty strong --

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but you've already exceeded your two minutes.

Mr Gravelle: Good morning, Mr Osborne. I want to return actually to Mr Martin's question about Mr Mundell's point -- the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. In essence he was saying that the reason they would prefer not to have any boards at all is to save money, administrative efficiencies. Certainly I see in your presentation that you've got an example of how we shouldn't be confusing administration with governance.

I'm wondering if you could give a little more detail to the committee in terms of administrative savings, how they can be done without affecting governance, without governance being a hindrance to efficiencies.

Mr Osborne: It's not unfamiliar to hear that comment from Mr Mundell or from AMO, but the fact of the matter is, the ability is already present under the current Public Library Act for municipalities and special-purpose authorities, like library boards, to merge certain areas of services. I know several of the larger libraries in the group I'm representing have a very close relationship with the municipality, particularly in areas of human resources administration, financial control or maintenance.

In London, by way of example, we've just turned over the management of maintenance, accounting and human resources to the city of London and that seems to be working satisfactorily, though that's a fairly new step and it's a little early to be evaluating it. The point I want to make is, that was all perfectly possible under the existing legislation. To suggest that the new legislation is needed to do that or to suggest that boards need to disappear or be diminished in some way, I don't think that flies. There's ample concrete evidence to the contrary.

Mr Gravelle: You can make lots of administrative savings without boards being dissolved?

Mr Osborne: Exactly.

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

ADMINISTRATORS OF SMALL PUBLIC LIBRARIES OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Would Barbara Taylor please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Barbara Taylor: Good morning. As the Administrators of Small Public Libraries of Ontario, ASPLO, we represent small public libraries serving populations of 15,000 and under. This is approximately 75% of the libraries in Ontario, 300 communities. We encompass rural communities from the north to the south, as well as smaller urban areas throughout the province. Our rural roots and the isolation of our communities give ASPLO a unique perspective towards public service. Standard public service infrastructure, such as transportation and telecommunications, cannot be taken for granted in many of our rural communities. We don't believe core public library service can be taken for granted either. Therefore, a provincial interest is essential to the provision of equal access to library service for our 300 small rural communities.

We would like to acknowledge that we are in agreement with the stated intentions of Bill 109. We believe, as the bill states, that the province must ensure that public libraries continue to successfully provide for Ontarians' information needs; that it must support their requirements for access to educational, research and recreational materials; and that it must allow Ontarians to benefit from access to information through a province-wide public library network. We are also very pleased that the revised act continues to require libraries to be under the control of boards.

Most of our concerns with this legislation stem from the fact that the stated purposes of the act will not be accomplished by the requirements laid out in it.

Library boards: The act states that, "A public library shall be under the management and control of a board," but the nature of the board is not defined at all. There is no stipulation as to size, so it could be a one-person board. There is no stipulation as to qualifications, so the one person could be a municipal employee, perhaps the CEO, the town clerk or the recreation director. We don't believe the intention of the act was to allow for a so-called board consisting of an employee of the municipality and having no community volunteer involvement whatsoever. We see the intent of the act being subverted by the total lack of criteria for the makeup of a library board.

To avoid this subversion, we recommend that the act must specify, at a minimum, the following for the makeup of a library board: that the board must consist of more than one person; that employees of the municipality cannot serve on the board; that the majority of the board must be local volunteer citizen appointments; that there should be a minimum number of board meetings; and that all board meetings must be public.

The revised act for the first time makes provision for a municipality to dissolve its library board without reference to the creation of larger units of service. According to our reading, the act would allow a municipality to manage without having either its own board or a contract for library service with another municipality. In other words, a municipality may decide not to provide any library service at all to its residents and, in our opinion, some will decide to do exactly that. We cannot understand how the act can state that one of its purposes is "to ensure public libraries continue to successfully provide for Ontarians' information needs," while in its details it allows municipalities for the first time to provide no library service at all.

Furthermore, the elimination of the per household grant will act as an incentive for some small municipalities to dissolve their library service. For instance, there are 40 libraries in Ontario which depend on the province for 50% or more of their funding. They will close their doors.

Through the grant stipulations of the previous act, at least an attempt was made to ensure that every municipality in Ontario would provide for library service to its residents. Municipalities were expected to provide their own library service or arrange a contract for service with another municipality if they wanted the provincial grant.

ASPLO recommends that the provincial grants continue and not be phased out, so that we ensure that the libraries in the province fulfil the intent of Bill 109.

0940

Networking: The act's stated purpose is "to allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network." Section 10(b) states that library boards "may cooperate with other boards," effectively leaving the cooperation necessary for networking as an option, not a requirement. ASPLO recommends that the word "shall" replace the word "may" in section 10(b).

We are pleased that the present revisions will not eliminate the Ontario library service through which the library network, especially interlibrary loan service, is presently maintained. However, the other crucial element in the maintenance of a province-wide library network is the participation of the individual libraries. The act seems to take participation in a network activity such as interlibrary loan for granted. That participation has always been assured because libraries received a per household grant.

With the proposed elimination of the grant there will be no incentive for large libraries to participate in interlibrary loan service. If enough libraries refuse to participate the interlibrary loan system will remain in name only. For small rural libraries this system is crucial to providing equal access to information. Small libraries will never be able to provide all the information to meet the needs of our communities. If the revised legislation is to be effective, it must include an incentive to ensure the continued participation of all Ontario public libraries. ASPLO recommends that the per household grant be maintained to prevent the erosion of the provincial library network.

Fees: ASPLO supports the concept of free core services found in the regulation but recommends that it not be limited to printed material. The distinction between print and non-print media is an artificial, meaningless one because of the proliferation of formats, electronic and otherwise. In this day and age some core services can be delivered in a non-print format. Government information is increasingly available only in electronic format. To charge Ontarians for access to this information would contradict the government's intent to distribute its information as widely as possible to its citizens.

The revenue generated from fees will not begin to replace the lost provincial funding for small libraries. Most of what small libraries offer falls into the category of that which must be free: print materials and electronic information used within the library. The charging of fees will also drastically reduce the use of those resources for which libraries may charge and therefore reduce the revenue which they generate.

Bill 109 begins by laying out several noble purposes. If the province truly wishes to see these purposes fulfilled, the provincial role in library service must be expanded beyond what is currently laid out in the details of the bill. We agree totally with Bill 109's aims. We hope that our recommendations will go some way towards showing the committee how the government's vision of library service in the province can be realized.

Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I appreciate your comments. I'm trying to understand, because we heard similar comments yesterday, why the boards have to have a majority of citizens. Someone elected to municipal office is always a citizen. Nothing happens to them the next day so that they stop being citizens. Two things happen: They start to get paid and they start to get paid to be accountable.

My concern is that some boards are non-accountable and it's not one-size-fits-all, as you so appropriately point out; each community has different needs. For instance, in my community the library lends toys; they have access to the Internet; they have movies on videotape. They have a number of things that they have now decided should be chargeable or that they won't be providing. They're trying to concentrate their resources more on what is strictly educational or closer to educational and recreational reading, more related to literature versus entertainment. We think the best body to decide that is local initiative -- you don't want the provincial government trying to micromanage each area of the province -- but with that accountability.

I don't understand why people assume municipal officeholders are not accountable. It seems to be an assumption that they're a bunch of ignoramuses who don't care about education and don't care about literature. I'm trying to understand that better. Could you explain to me?

Ms Taylor: Of course, it varies from municipality to municipality. It has been fairly obvious to lots of small libraries ASPLO deals with that some municipalities function very well with a number of councillors on their boards, which to me is the best solution, that there be a mixture of both councillors and citizen volunteers. Our own board currently has three councillors and six volunteers. But in small communities, as I mentioned, to raise enough money through fees to replace the provincial grant we need those volunteers on our boards who encourage donations, who go out and do fund-raising on behalf of the library.

Mr Young: I understand. But I'm trying to understand why you think that there won't be volunteers on the boards any more. Why do you think that all of a sudden municipalities will throw that away?

Ms Taylor: A number of municipalities have indicated that they will not have volunteers at all, and certainly they were not expecting there to be a board in place. They were expecting this to be a committee of council and that therefore there would not be any citizen input to that. A lot of them do not want any citizen input.

Mr Gravelle: I think the point you're making too is that there are some municipalities that have already made the point that they're going to simply dissolve the boards and the libraries may close themselves. The branches may close.

Thanks very much, Ms Taylor, for showing up. I think it's really important to state that you really are representing an extraordinary part of the library community in Ontario. Certainly 75% of the libraries are obviously in communities under 15,000, so it really is a large voice that you're bringing, and I hope that everybody will be listening to you.

The point you're making about user fees I think is important, and the provincial grant is important because of the much larger significance it has in small and rural communities, many of which are up in northern Ontario, where both Mr Martin and I are from. I think we want to make that point really clearly too.

I've tried to make the point that user fees or whatever cannot by any means make up for what the loss in the provincial grant will be. Have you done any survey at all among your libraries in terms of whether or not they've checked with their local councils and whether there is any intention of making up the difference between the provincial transfer being taken away? Is there any kind of indication you can give us in terms of the 300 libraries? I appreciate that's difficult, but I'm sure we'd all be curious to see what the thoughts are right now, even in percentage terms.

Ms Taylor: I really have no idea of actual numbers. I know that even with the 20% decline in the grants, for lots of municipalities they did not replace even that 20%, so there are a number of libraries with the 20% again this year being taken out of their budgets. Some of them will be closing down hours, getting rid of staff, reducing their budgets, and the more we do that, the less the service is good to the community. We can't be providing a service without the moneys to do it, and it's obvious to me that the communities are going to be hard pressed to find the money for all the services they're going to have to be responsible for now. Almost none of them is in a position through having boards to be able to help raise the money themselves. Nobody donates to the town to pave a street but they will donate money to a library board to help increase the collection and the services available and they've done that.

Mr Gravelle: It's an important point. Thank you.

Mr Martin: I don't think anybody should be misled into thinking that this bill is actually about improving libraries. This bill is about the downloading of the cost of services to municipalities. It's about allowing municipalities to find ways to deal with the shortage of revenue they're going to have once all this kicks in. That was perfectly obvious when we heard from AMO yesterday, who talked about some of their misgivings re the bill because it didn't go far enough. It didn't wipe out boards so that they could fold completely the operation of libraries into the municipal organization.

We have an example of Ignace -- I don't know if you've heard about that one -- where they're going to close down a library that was built by the people, in partnership with the provincial government, as a beautiful place for its citizens to go and access information. They're going to move the library into the school and turn the new library that they built into the municipal offices because it's the newest building in town. I suggest there will be other examples of that kind of thing crop up as this bill becomes the law and as municipalities are allowed to do those kinds of things.

You speak for small libraries. Are there stories like that beginning to come out in your circles now and are there any that you'd like to share with us here this morning?

Ms Taylor: There are many. I think at this point no one really knows what's going to happen. Everyone is waiting to see when the other shoe will fall and we have no idea. Most municipalities this year are just sitting, waiting. As far as our budgets went, most of them either weren't reduced a whole lot or were reduced a very small amount this year, so we have no idea what will happen once all the downloading occurs. But we have no reason to suspect that because there isn't any money the municipalities have to use for library service, they will use any of it for library service. We don't see library service as a fringe service. Given the economic conditions in our country today, libraries are fulfilling a more and more important role all the time and we can't do that without the funds.

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

0950

CITY OF LONDON

The Chair: Would representatives from the city of London please come forward: Mr Hopcroft and Mr Swan. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Grant Hopcroft: Thank you very much. I'd like to start by welcoming members of the committee to London. We appreciate the fact that you get out around the province to give an opportunity for everyone to have some input on these legislative amendments.

Perhaps to start with some introductions, Councillor Joe Swan is also chair of the community and protective services committee of city council to which our library board reports. I'm Grant Hopcroft, deputy mayor and a former member of the London Public Library board for some 10 years and a former chair of that board.

The city of London supports the changes introduced in Bill 109, and one need not look much further than the title of the act to understand why. While municipalities have traditionally carried a very significant portion of the cost of the public library system in Ontario, recent announcements by the province indicate that the municipal funding role will grow to the point where all of the expenditures made by local libraries, with the exception of revenues generated by services provided, will flow from local property taxpayers. While municipalities have had a somewhat larger measure of control over library finance than in the services offered by some other special-purpose bodies in the larger local governance structure, the city is pleased to see that the commensurate "say for pay" in the library system will grow with the passage of Bill 109. We support, therefore, the general direction of the bill, but we have some specific comments.

First in the area of governance: As the government body with the responsibility for virtually all the tax-supported assistance to library boards, we commend the province for giving municipal councils the right to determine the size and composition of the board, the qualifications of the board's members and all the rules and procedures that go with appointments to that board. We believe strongly that local councils understand the role and importance of libraries and will appoint people to boards who will reflect that importance.

With respect to budgets, we appreciate the clarification in the legislation of the right of municipal council to approve, reject or amend the estimates of the board. We acknowledge that once approved, those estimates will be binding on the municipality, and believe that's a responsible direction for the legislation to take. The library board, once it has secured municipal council approval, can proceed to manage the library with some degree of confidence as to the resources available.

We note that municipal council has been given the authority to determine a level of flexibility that the library board has to vary expenditures authorized in the line-by-line approval of the budget, and again, believe that this is a prudent approach to take. Individual councils will not only be able to set the overall envelope of spending but are authorized to give the board greater or lesser flexibility in using those funds as council sees fit. The "say for pay" concept is important to us and this authority reflects that.

Additionally, in the matter of financial accountability, we are pleased to see the board will be required to make an annual report to council.

On the issue of grants, the current Public Libraries Act makes provision for the minister to make grants to library boards for library purposes. The bill deletes that section, giving effect to the intention of the province to eliminate library grants.

The city of London wishes the standing committee to take full recognition of the rebalancing that underlies the stated intentions of the province. If there is to be an elimination of grants to libraries as part of the overall set of changes to provincial-municipal finance, the city insists that such reductions be fully addressed in that rebalancing. Losses in the funding of the library system in our city must be taken into account in all the other adjustments being made.

On the issue of partnership ventures, we are in agreement with the London Public Library board submission. We think the words "in the community" should be deleted from the provisions "seek to work cooperatively with other publicly funded libraries to improve library service in the community," as we feel that wording unduly restricts the intent of the legislation and the ability of our local public library boards to forge partnerships or cooperative ventures.

In the area of administration, the library board has been given the authority to appoint an employee who shall have general supervision over and direction of the operations of the public library and its staff. We were pleased to see the act does not constrain the municipality in any way as to who the employee might be. In the event that the municipal council and the library board should agree on the concept of merged or integrated administrations, nothing in this bill, in our opinion, would stand in the way of that approach. In these days of tight resources and re-engineered and restructured delivery systems, the flexibility of local councils and boards to structure themselves efficiently is critical.

Given the added responsibility the municipal government will have for library finance, we also appreciate the provisions of section 12, which require the consent of the appointing council for board decisions regarding the "purchase, lease, expropriation," construction, renovation or disposition of land and buildings, again a prudent measure and a reflection of "say for pay."

On the issue of access, we are cognizant of the measures taken in this bill that guarantee free access to libraries, free use of materials in libraries and free borrowing of printed materials in certain circumstances. The people of Ontario have long accepted the right of access to their libraries for learning and recreation and cherish the concept of equal access.

In conclusion, the city support Bill 109. It contains elements which municipalities such as London would like to see in place and it addresses our need for more local control, efficiency and accountability while at the same time ensuring public access to libraries is not jeopardized.

We'd be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

The Chair: We have better than about two and a half minutes per caucus for questions.

Mr Gravelle: It's a long time for us to have in these hearings.

Good morning, Mr Hopcroft. I just want to thank you very much. I appreciate the point of view you brought forward on a number of the issues, especially in light of the situation that municipalities are in generally in the province or will be in.

One area in which we've had constant representation has been the whole concept of citizen majority on the local boards. The question I really want to ask you, and I do appreciate what you're saying here: In that you will have line-by-line approval of the budget and in that you will have local control, and I presume you've had good relations with the library boards in the past, is it fair to say --

Mr Hopcroft: Not always.

Mr Gravelle: All right, but is it fair to say that generally speaking, you would certainly not be against citizen involvement in the boards? Are you saying that you will actually plan not to have citizens involved on the boards?

Mr Hopcroft: London, I think, has a long history of having citizen involvement in not just statutory local boards but in boards we have created through private legislation, special legislation or under other acts of the province. I think we speak very strongly to the issue being one for local decision. I think we object strenuously to that being dictated to us. We think that those issues of membership and citizen involvement should be determined locally on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Joe Swan: If I might add to that, obviously the debate was taken on the council floor as well as to the appropriate approach in this matter. I think the local council shares the same concerns you have, that we make sure volunteers have an active and participatory role in the operation and governance of our library board. That matter was stated I guess unequivocally by all members of council, that there's a valuable role for volunteers to play in the running of libraries.

The question is, who should determine and when should they determine those roles? The majority of members of council feel that should be left to the local council; it does not need to be embedded in legislation that local councils will have the same commitment as provincial members have to ensure that there's active community involvement on the library board.

So we share the same goal and the same principles to ensure that happens. The question is, who should determine it? Do you need it to be in legislation or should you allow the local council to make that determination?

Mr Gravelle: Again, my interest or my concern is that you've assured volunteer participation, but the concern from a lot of people making presentations, in reverse, is that unless they have a significant board role, it is more difficult to have volunteers, and we're less likely to have volunteers involved who will be playing the role that's most useful and most helpful, as advocates for the libraries.

The case they made is that their job wouldn't be to fight you for dollars, that they'd obviously be having to deal with the dollars that are allotted them and with the recognition of the shrinking resources. I appreciate your position but I'm still not 100% clear on why you would be so resistant to having a mandated number of citizens who are citizens of your community.

Mr Swan: We just don't feel it's necessary.

1000

Mr Martin: Thank you very much for your presentation. I don't agree with everything you support here but I certainly am appreciative of the fact that you are honest in your presentation. I don't think there's any fudging the fact that this is about dealing with less money to the municipality, and when you say "say for pay," what you really mean is "say for lesser pay," because you're getting less money from the province, and how you deal with that is a huge challenge. I don't envy you that because I know that library funding is just one piece of the puzzle through which you're going to get less money flowing to the municipality.

Yesterday your parent organization, AMO, came before us and suggested that they should actually not have in it a provision for boards to exist. Would you agree with that?

Mr Hopcroft: The stated view of our council is that we support the provisions of the bill. We recognize that AMO's position would have even greater flexibility than the legislation now provides, but the position of our council is support for the bill as it stands.

Mr Martin: You obviously, as you said to my colleague, recognize the valuable contribution that citizen boards make to a facility such as a library.

You state in here that in the event that --

Mr Hopcroft: As I mentioned earlier, in London we have created boards to deliver services in a variety of areas where none existed previously. They're very useful vehicles in some circumstances to provide service and involve citizens in delivery of municipal services.

Mr Martin: You also say here, "In the event that the municipal council and the library board should agree on the concept of merged or integrated administrations," there's nothing in this bill that would stand in the way of that happening.

Mr Hopcroft: That's our understanding.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Thank you very much for being here this morning, and we certainly appreciate some of the comments you've made. I wondered if you'd talk again about the issue of governance, because certainly many people have presented to us a different position. I think it's one that demonstrates more a fear, if you like, that is contrary to the sentence you have here that you believe strongly that local councillors understand the role and importance of libraries and will appoint people to library boards who reflect that sensitivity.

I just wanted to know what your comment was in relation to that statement, given the concerns we hear, and I think it comes back to that issue of accountability, which is of course the essence of the "say for pay" and so forth. I wonder if you have any comments to make that reflect that notion of accountability that obviously stands behind what your statement is in this presentation.

Mr Hopcroft: If I could start with the existing legislation providing for certain basically designated appointments, in fact while municipal councils technically appoint all the current appointees of library boards, some of those are designates from boards of education and so on. So there's probably not the same direct accountability now as there would be in future under the provisions of this bill.

I've been a library trustee myself for 10 years, and there's always tended to be, unfortunately, a bit of an us-versus-them attitude on the part of some public library trustees and municipal councils, for a variety of local reasons in many cases.

I really think what the bill does is balance the interests of those who are paying for the service with the citizens of the community, and in many cases I think it's convenient for municipal councils who aren't directly accountable for service sometimes to suggest, "If you've got a problem with the library, go talk to the library board; that's really not something we're responsible or accountable for." I think the bill cuts through a lot of that and provides for continuation and perhaps an improvement to the issue of line-by-line accountability and budgetary expenditures, but also the ability for local councils and their local citizens. I don't think councils make decisions in isolation from their local citizens about what the best structure for the board is in that community and to arrive at the best mix of citizen involvement and council involvement in how they report.

Mr Swan: I think it's also important that we are effectively talking about libraries in the new knowledge industry. The form and composition of boards and governance structures in this new information economy are going to require imagination and local flexibility to respond to that. If we try to take a cookie-cutter approach across the province, that the library boards will look the same in each community, I think you'll restrict the capacity for innovation and change. That's what local councils can do, and draw those partnerships together and design the board that works for their communities. As to whether people should trust us, Controller Hopcroft, as you know, is both a lawyer and a politician; I have no idea why the public wouldn't trust us.

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

STRATFORD PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Joyce Jantos please come forward for the Stratford Public Library.

Mr Harry Nesbitt: I'm Joyce.

The Chair: Come on forward, Joyce. Sorry, I have a different name down. Welcome to the committee. I'd appreciate it if you'd both introduce yourselves for the benefit of the committee members.

Ms Jane Kirkpatrick: My name is Jane Kirkpatrick. I'm the CEO of the Stratford Public Library. Mr Harry Nesbitt is a trustee on our board, former president of the Ontario Library Trustees' Association, and he will be making the presentation this morning.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you people. I just came from Timmins a couple of days ago and there was quite a bit of snow up there, and then of course we have a little snow coming down this morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly. I have a short little summary here.

The Stratford Public Library believes that the proposed changes to the library system of Ontario are seriously flawed. We welcome this opportunity to present what we believe are essential elements in assuring that the people of Ontario continue to enjoy the level of service and access to which they have been accustomed.

Our library system is acclaimed as among the best in the world. It is our desire that it remain as such. To that end, we believe that libraries within the province should be governed as follows.

Citizen participation on library boards should continue to be mandated by any new legislation. Political considerations should not enter into questions such as intellectual freedom. Municipal politicians, because of the nature of the electoral system, could fall prey to vocal minorities who would restrict access to information which they found distasteful. Municipal councils should, of course, maintain their control over library budgets.

Further, it is necessary that provincial standards be imposed on the composition of boards so as to ensure that consistent quality in library governance is maintained across the province. Variations in board size and makeup could lead to problems in access, intellectual freedom and quality of the collection. A multiplicity of municipal libraries marching to their own drum mitigates against coordination, cooperation and innovation. A network requires standards to function and it is the job of government to provide the framework for these standards. Any attempt to remove standards for board makeup is an abrogation of the duty of this government.

Further, the question of possible additional costs incurred, should the library be governed by a committee of municipal council, has not been adequately considered. We believe the most appropriate administrative structure would offer the same level of professionalism that currently exists in our provincial library system. The escalating demands of the new information age, with its daily quantum technological advances, demand new skills and increased knowledge if the benefits to the people of Ontario are to be realized. Therefore it would be inappropriate, and leave us sadly uncompetitive with neighbouring jurisdictions, to replace library staff with volunteers. If we are to compete on a global scale, access to information is imperative. Any action on the part of government which could retard this access would be counterproductive.

We accept the concept of voluntarism in the areas of library support. Historically, volunteer trustees have helped to create a library system among the best in the world. Dismantling this infrastructure will inexorably reduce this involvement and lower the commitment and quality of the voluntarism. If the government wishes to promote voluntarism in the library system, it seems contradictory to remove one of the key areas of volunteer activity, that is, mandatory citizen involvement on library boards.

1010

Other volunteer activities already do, and will continue to exist in areas of support to our library and to the community it serves. These include friends' groups, literacy programs and seniors' and children's programs. We believe that anyone should be able to enter the library and use the library-owned materials.

Free access to library facilities, as well as to any and all materials used in public libraries and borrowed for home use, is fundamental to the rights of citizens in a free and democratic country. Democracy without knowledge can never endure long. The suggestion that the same materials, free for use within the library, should suddenly become a source of revenue when a patron attempts to take them out of the library shows a lack of understanding of public library usage. Any effort to separate books and other reading materials from information delivered in other technologically more sophisticated formats is woefully out of touch with society today.

Limiting the use of some materials to free in-library use will also result in hardships to libraries situated in rural areas where distance becomes a factor and to smaller libraries where providing in-library-use facilities may be impossible.

Public libraries are a mainstay of communities across this province. Their health and wellbeing are essential to the health and wellbeing of the communities they serve.

I want to thank you. We've attempted in this brief to stress the areas of most concern to us and bring to your attention what we feel essential to maintaining a healthy library system in Ontario. Well-thought-out change is positive and progressive; change for the sake of change is not.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. Certainly your brief fits into a pattern we've seen develop over the last day and some hours this morning which sees those people directly involved in the delivery of library services, boards and volunteers and users opposed to this piece of work. Municipalities, because they're under tremendous stress by way of the downloading and in need of ways to balance their books, are supportive, to a degree, of this. In some instances it doesn't go far enough and in some instances there's a request for further tinkering with the wording.

You raised one point this morning in your presentation that hasn't been gone into in as much detail. Mind you, there's still more detail, and that's my question to you around the administration of libraries. There's a sense that you need really seriously to keep the board separate so that it can be governed. The question of administration in libraries: Is the administration of a library a different kettle of fish from the administration of a municipality? Are there things about administering a library that would make it difficult, if you didn't have an understanding of how libraries work and the unique logistical challenges that go with operating a library, to fold completely into a municipal administrative structure?

Ms Kirkpatrick: Sir, are you inquiring in terms of, for example, the chief executive officer? Are the functions of a CEO in a library different from the department head's functions?

Mr Martin: Yes.

Ms Kirkpatrick: In many respects no, they are not. I would liken it to CEOs of libraries having specialized knowledge, similar to city engineers or degreed people from parks and recreation, because the nature of the work is quite specific; the nature of what we do is very specific. I think where we see differences is that in terms of the kind of service we provide, because it is so strongly focused on direct one-on-one service to the public, it is very labour-intensive. It does not lend itself particularly to the introduction of user fees, which is one of the major concerns.

The other point is that in terms of dealing on a day-to-day basis or dealing within the confines of the municipality, we, because of our board governance, have tended to operate independently of the municipality and independently of some of the pressures that are brought to bear on municipal governments, which then translate down to the department head level. So there are changes, but in many respects it is very similar too.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): Thank you very much for your presentation. Sir, you said you were at one time a member of the trustees' association of Ontario. Did I hear you say that?

Mr Nesbitt: Yes. I am on council. I'm a city representative on the board. I've been on the board 12 years. I am a past president of the old Ontario Library Trustees' Association.

Mr Stewart: There was a lady a little prior that made the comment that the rural -- and I'm from rural Ontario -- were very concerned about one-person boards, one council member on a board only etc. Can you tell me, over the years of your experience, how often that has happened in Ontario?

Mr Nesbitt: No, I couldn't, but I can speak for --

Mr Stewart: Maybe not the percentage. Has it happened often in Ontario?

Mr Nesbitt: That there would only be one board, one council?

Mr Stewart: That there's only one person on a board or whatever. The point I'm trying to make is that there seems to be a lot of fear that the minute this bill goes through, all boards are going to be discontinued, councils are going to totally take it over, there's going to be one person on the board, they're going to set up a bureaucracy. I can tell you, if the Who Does What goes through, councils will not be looking at trying to set up another bureaucracy.

I look through many of the presentations and the word is, "could" or "may" happen. I guess I'm trying to get in my mind, if it could or may, has it happened very often in the past, and why would it happen when we've got a good organization going, very important in the volunteer sector? Why would it change?

Mr Nesbitt: You're very right. "Could" and "should" are very good statements, but not necessarily what would happen.

Just in the last five years, AMO -- someone will probably be rapping me for this -- has been trying to get rid of the special services boards. All you'd ever hear them talking about was first the police services boards, which I sometimes think they should, and the library boards. I would get up, every time I went down to Toronto, and some of the people here have heard me get up, and speak against this wanting to do away with library boards. I never felt that AMO could give us a good reason why we should do away with the library boards, and I still don't think they can give us a good reason. They're probably still harping on that, but they seem to be nicer about it. Every time they see me, they don't harp quite as madly at me.

Mr Stewart: I was just looking through their presentation yesterday, because this comes up quite often. What AMO is looking -- and let me assure you, and you know sir, that AMO does not represent all of the municipalities of Ontario by any means.

Mr Nesbitt: Most of them.

Mr Stewart: Well, yes, but ROMA and FONOM and a few of the other ones represent a lot more of them.

The Chair: You're going to have to make your point quickly.

Mr Stewart: They are not coming out and saying no. What they're looking for is flexibility. What's good in Stratford may not be usable in Keene; what's good in Toronto may not be good in Lanark. I guess they're looking for that flexibility and to put it into the hands of municipalities to work with the people of the community.

Mr Gravelle: Mr Nesbitt and Ms Kirkpatrick, thank you very much for coming in this morning. I completely agree with your presentation in the sense that this legislation is seriously flawed and I think part of the purpose obviously of having these hearings is to listen to people such as yourselves. I appreciate it.

Certainly the Ontario Liberal caucus has agreed that we need to have some major changes and amendments to this legislation to at least come close to the rhetoric the minister has in the legislation. For example, when she introduced the bill she said this new act will "both improve the delivery of library services to the people of Ontario and lower the cost of this service."

In terms of improving the delivery, I just want to ask you, based on what is in Bill 109 now and in terms of the whole question of basically the boards themselves, the whole question of core services, the whole question of user fees, do you think it's remotely accurate for the minister to say that it will improve the delivery of local services, let alone the preamble she has in the bill that it's going to obviously maintain access to everybody in Ontario, whether there's anything in this that is remotely connected to reality?

Mr Nesbitt: I suppose there is some reality in all of this and probably quite a bit, but whether it will ever be cheaper, that's a good question. I never saw anything yet happen that became cheaper, so in that respect I wouldn't see that happening. Have you anything you'd like to add, Jane?

Ms Kirkpatrick: I think the way the legislation is set up will make it difficult to improve service because of the withdrawal of the per household grants. It will make it very difficult to sustain current levels of service, let alone improve services. I think most municipalities -- certainly in ours, we don't have any expectation that our municipality will be looking to make up the shortfall when the government grant disappears.

We're also in the position that we have contracts with neighbouring townships which fund their library service pretty much totally on government grants, and we don't expect that we'll be able to sustain those contracts. So in our situation we're definitely looking at revenue reduction, and frankly, introduction of user fees for loaning specific formats will not come close to replacing that revenue.

Mr Gravelle: That's one of the points that's been made very often and I think it's an important one to keep making, that user fees cannot replace the provincial transfer in any way at all.

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

1020

ADMINISTRATORS OF MEDIUM-SIZED PUBLIC LIBRARIES OF ONTARIO

The Chair: Would the representative from the Administrators of Medium-sized Public Libraries of Ontario please come forward. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Ms Wendy Newman: Good morning. My name is Wendy Newman. I'm chair of the Administrators of Medium-Sized Public Libraries of Ontario, or AMPLO. Our group consists of the chief librarians of the 68 public libraries that serve populations between 15,000 and 100,000 in Ontario. We welcome the opportunity of public hearings, and in particular this opportunity to offer recommendations to this committee which we believe will strengthen the effect of the new statement of purpose in Bill 109.

Our comments will focus on five aspects: (1) the statement of purpose; (2) library board composition; (3) access to core services; (4) provincial grants; and (5) data on the gives and takes between the province and the municipalities.

First, with respect to the statement of purpose in Bill 109, AMPLO firmly supports this statement of purpose. It's clear. It's helpful. AMPLO expects that the recommendations we are going to make are consistent with the basis of that purpose statement and consistent with the stated priorities of the government in advancing a knowledge-based society.

Turning now to board composition, AMPLO supports the retention of library boards in Bill 109. We recommend that to ensure both consistency with the purpose statement and clarity in implementation, the bill establish two things: first, a requirement for citizen majorities, and second, an arm's-length relationship with municipal councils. We believe this recommendation is consistent with the government's approach to police service boards in safeguarding both apolitical processes and equitable access.

The protection of intellectual freedom and the ensuring of free access to the tools of thought is simply essential to the building and maintenance of a fully functioning democratic state. That access must not be constrained by vulnerability to special interest, whether it is of a religious, philosophical, social or political bent. It is not a matter of councils being in any sense the wrong people. It has to do with the appropriateness of the political forum as the focus for the increasing numbers of pressure or one-interest groups. Yet this recommendation that we are making would not compromise in any way the financial control and accountability of municipal councils for funds or for appointments, or prohibit any administrative savings that represent cost-effective ways forward. There is nothing in this recommendation and in fact nothing in the current act that prevents all forms of administrative cooperation that simply save public funds.

We believe our recommendation is also consistent with the government's purpose in maintaining successful public libraries and its commitment to voluntarism. Unfortunately, the way the bill reads now, it leaves open the possibility of the erosion of boards down to a purely nominal role. To continue to benefit from the high degree of involvement and success of library boards, which contribute half a million hours of volunteer service to Ontario's communities annually -- that is a strong figure; I've actually done the arithmetic and it is true -- AMPLO recommends that boards be required to consist of a combination of municipal council and volunteer citizen members, with a majority who are not members of council or municipal staff. Such a composition would ensure an arm's-length relationship and the continued community involvement of volunteers. Again, the model that the government has introduced for police boards is consistent with this recommendation.

Our recommendation is also consistent with the government's commitment to economical and grass-roots participation. Library boards are able to engage a great deal of successful community-based fund-raising, something that is much more unlikely to occur where there is no arm's-length relationship with the ability to tax.

Turning now to access to core services, AMPLO supports the concept of free core services in the regulation. We recommend that the core of library service, however, not be limited to the print medium. In particular, AMPLO recommends that electronic services and basic reference services particularly be considered free core services. Protecting the right of everyone in the province to access the culture and information of the world, free of charge and regardless of physical medium, will ensure that Ontario's citizens will maintain the ability to compete in a global information society.

I note that various formats keep coming up. In particular, somehow the subject of videos keeps coming up. I just want to make two points very briefly about videos. First of all, what's there? What is in public library video collections is very different from what is in Jumbo Video stores, and that is deliberate. The purpose of Jumbo Video is very different from the purpose of the public library. Second, in surveys that have been done, one very thorough one in my own community, of the perceptions and attitudes of the video store owners, there were none who objected to what was in the public library. As a matter of fact, they like making referrals to the public library for the kind of thing that falls clearly outside their selection criteria. They particularly noted that they prefer to do that than refer anyone to the competition. So they seem to be well aware of what we're doing and not unsupportive of it.

Our recommendation about free core services is consistent with the role of public libraries as the informal education system in the knowledge-based society that is mentioned in the purpose statement.

Public library support for new skills training and retraining actually started with the mechanics' institutes in the 19th century and it has not ceased, whether the learner is in need of new keyboarding skills or the knowledge base to start a business. In the information age, information literacy is as significant to society as is traditional literacy. For large numbers of people who could not otherwise afford it, the public library has provided and will continue to provide initiation into information literacy.

Our recommendation is also consistent with the government's commitment to an informed democracy and cost-effective distribution of government information. Quite simply, it is in the government's own interest to ensure cost-effective distribution of electronic information, to which it increasingly turns. If they were to throw up a cost barrier for access to that, it would be completely counterstrategic to the government's objectives. The use of Ontario's public libraries as a government communications network is accelerating, and the infrastructure is there to make that a much more practical and cost-effective reality, provided that cost barriers are not thrown in the way of that important strategy.

Our recommendation is also consistent with the government's commitment to access as defined in Bill 109. It would avoid a two-tiered system of public access to public library service.

To do this, basic reference service should also be free. As the bill reads today, even simple directional assistance of the variety, "Where are the government documents?" could be a fee-based transaction.

1030

Our recommendation is consistent with the role of public libraries as support systems for the free formal education system, and the rationale for these go hand in hand.

Our recommendation is consistent with the role of public libraries as effective partner organizations. This has been alluded to earlier this morning. Public libraries make good partner organizations for government and non-government bodies because we do not have barriers to access and we don't have ideological sharp edges. If we throw in fee-based structures for access to core services, we're going to restrict the ability and willingness of other organizations to be partners with us to add to the total of what we can provide.

Our recommendation is also consistent with the government's commitment to economic renewal and an information-based society.

That's the case in principle. I just want to turn very briefly to the solid business case against charging fees for core services.

If you have fees for materials that are high, they will be a barrier and a deterrent to use. It is certainly not in the public interest to deter use of the public libraries. If fees are low, the operating costs of implementing these, of chasing those few dollars, just simply don't make sense. So the case in principle and the business case both argue against fees for core services.

Turning now to the direct provincial grants, AMPLO recommends that the current direct grants to library boards be continued and that a continued funding role for the province be retained. This recommendation is consistent with purpose statement number 1: "To ensure public libraries continue to successfully provide for Ontarians' information needs."

We have heard already this morning about the impact on small communities, libraries that are dependent on the provincial grant. At the other end of the spectrum, the large libraries will have no incentive to lend to small libraries without some provincial funds to secure their participation in resource-sharing.

The collapse of the resource-sharing network would be a waste of a tremendous and successful Ontario investment, established at provincial expense, that prevents expensive duplication and ensures equity of access. If there is to be a minimal level of service in our informal education system and real participation in it, the province has to be in the game as a funder.

Our recommendation is consistent with purpose number 3: "To allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network." If that network is to exist, if that network is to have access points throughout Ontario, the province needs to be involved. It is now and will remain in the economic interest of the province as a whole to maintain its funding involvement in public libraries, including the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library, a provincial resource that should not be left entirely to local resources, to ensure a continuing resource for both individual and business research.

Last, data on the balance of gives and takes: AMPLO recommends that clear and unambiguous and complete data on the gives and takes, municipality by municipality, be released to clarify the financial situation of our municipalities so that local discussion could be focused on the actual work before us. The government has announced plans to phase out the direct grants to public libraries. There is an assumption, however, that municipalities will fund the difference. There is no requirement that they do so and there is no provincial analysis available to demonstrate how they could do so.

In conclusion, public libraries are not just local services. They play a very strong provincial role in a strategy that is important to the future of the province. There is a sound and solid infrastructure of resource-sharing; there is a strategic plan called One Place to Look; there is a development and implementation of the Excel program that leads to on-the-job certification for non-professional library staff; there is a new voluntary accreditation process developed by the Ontario Public Libraries Strategic Directions Council; there have been various capital projects. These and other efforts have fostered and invigorated an information climate that could quite simply not have been attained without provincial involvement, encouragement and assistance.

We trust that these recommendations will assist the government in preserving valued services that have served the public interest well, consistent with the declared purpose in Bill 109.

The Chair: Thank you very much. There's only a minute and a half remaining, so I have to pick up where I left off in the rotation yesterday. We finished with Mr Martin, so it's the government caucus which gets that minute and a half for questions.

Mrs Munro: Thank you very much for a very thorough analysis. I think what you have really identified for us at the heart of the problem is the question of, what is the role of the province, what is the role of the municipality? I think the act very clearly goes back to those recommendations made through the Who Does What panel in terms of identifying the need for a provincial role.

I'd like to ask you then, given that it is in that context where there is a clear indication from the province that there's an exchange in terms of financial commitment, do you see the recognition of that accountability at the municipal level? You have identified problems in terms of who would make the decision to charge a fee for service. Is it not the municipality? I mean through the board, but at that level, that's where the decision will be made?

Ms Newman: Our recommendation is that the province establish a core services framework and the distinction between core and non-core is left therefore to local decision-making; that is, there is a provision in the regulation for certain services to be defined as core, free services and not subject to fees. It is AMPLO's recommendation that the core services framework defined by the province be broadened particularly to include electronic service provision, basic reference service; that is, that it not be defined in terms of the format, the container of the information. There are many other services that public libraries can and do offer that are not within that defined core, and that kind of decision-making is perfectly appropriate at a local level.

The Chair: Thank you for appearing today before the committee. We appreciate your attendance.

KITCHENER PUBLIC LIBRARY
WATERLOO PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would representatives from the Kitchener and Waterloo public library boards please come forward. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Bruce MacNeil: I'd like to introduce the representatives from our boards. We have Mr Eydt, who is the past chair of the Waterloo Public Library board, and Mr Eric Bow, who in addition to being a representative on the Southern Ontario Library Service is also chair of the Saugeen trustees' advisory council. I'm Bruce MacNeil, past chair of the library board. I've had the opportunity to make a previous presentation to the general government committee regarding Bill 26 and the proposed dissolution of local boards and public library governance.

I'd also like to mention that three of the members of our delegation -- the two CEOs are with us as well -- are volunteers. We've taken time out of busy schedules to come and speak to you for 15 minutes and also to drive the distance from K-W. I think that's an indication of our commitment as volunteers to library service both in our communities and in our province.

We have a brief statement to make. The boards of the KPL and the Waterloo Public Library are going to address our comments specifically to the proposed changes in library board composition.

The present legislation recognizes the importance of balancing the interests of the community and the need to protect intellectual freedom. While the new draft legislation continues the existence of library boards, it is the lack of any guidelines on the composition of the library board that we would like you to reconsider.

In a political environment that promotes partnerships with other public sectors such as education, voluntary organizations and community groups, as well as private sector interests, it would only follow that library boards be free to reflect these potential partnerships as well as the interests of the citizens they serve. Both the Kitchener and Waterloo library boards have benefited from community-based boards comprised of teachers, architects, business people and other dynamic community leaders who represent the breadth of our community interest.

The workings of libraries and the promotion and protection of their services are more complicated and time-consuming than one might think. Boards attract dedicated and committed volunteers willing to make the effort to ensure the best services are available to our communities.

1040

Libraries are complex organizations with a high degree of public interest. The number of board meetings per year should be maintained to ensure authority and dialogue. Board meetings should continue to be public. Appointments to the board should be advertised, and municipal and library staff should not be eligible for appointment so as to avoid possible conflict of interest.

Maintaining a library board comprised of a majority of community representatives does not challenge council's control over library finances and board appointments. It does, however, guarantee that library service direction is managed by knowledgeable community representatives who devote the time and energy to the work required. Our government would be remiss in not taking advantage of this expertise and commitment.

Furthermore, a library board of community representatives would be particularly beneficial in order to keep censorship issues from the political arena, where they would be difficult to deal with at arm's length. A board comprised mainly of city councillors would find it difficult to resist pressure from a vocal minority seeking to censor ideas and thoughts conveyed in library materials.

Volunteer library boards have been providing a valuable, cost-effective service for over 100 years in this province. The boards collectively spend thousands of hours of service each year in guiding the activities of public libraries and raising funds, at no cost to the taxpayer. They provide expertise and a level of attention difficult for busy councillors to provide. In many municipalities, board members assist with professional advice that many libraries could not afford to purchase, and often such professional advice is not available from councillors. There is no cost to the municipality for this service. We believe it is this truly voluntary nature of boards that attracts highly qualified and interested individuals in serving without remuneration.

Citizen library trustees working with local councils as described by the current act ensures accountability, efficiency and citizen input. In order to maintain the high degree of involvement and success of library boards, we request that you consider requiring municipalities to set up library boards with a majority who are not members of councils. Such a composition would ensure an arm's-length relationship and continued community involvement in this much-valued and well-used public service, without loss of local control.

Mr Gravelle: Good morning and welcome. Thank you for your presentation. It's probably fair to say that of all the presentations we've heard in the last day and a half, the major issue that keeps coming up is the whole question of the actual library boards and the question of citizen participation on the boards. The minister has said publicly that indeed this is a compromise. There are some -- AMO has said they would rather have no boards at all. Because of the downloading and the pressure that's being put on them, they'd rather not have library boards at all, whereas obviously a majority of people who are involved with the libraries themselves feel very strongly that a citizen majority is a very important idea.

It seems very clear that a citizen majority makes a great deal of sense and the minister's compromise I think is a way of simply setting up the fall of boards, which I think would be horrendous. What can you say to those municipalities that are concerned that having library boards in some way with a citizen majority are going to complicate the process? They are under pressure; there going to be those kinds of things. I guess what might be helpful to hear is that the citizen majority board surely would not be there to complicate the process for the councils. You make it clear in your brief they're valued, but what can you say to reassure the municipalities that that would not be the purpose of the boards? Indeed a lot of it you said already, but if you can amplify it, that will be helpful, I think.

Mr MacNeil: I don't know if I'm answering your question directly, but I know that the relationship we've had with our municipalities has been really quite good. I think the difficulty facing councillors at the moment is that they're taken up with a lot of very complex issues they need to deal with, and here we have a group of people from the community who -- and in our case, we've worked very closely with the community in the last couple of years in developing a strategic plan. We've gone out to community groups and met with all of these community groups and determined their needs and what they would like to see the library doing. That's certainly not something the councillors have time to do, nor do they have the expertise. In working closely with council, the city and the municipalities, we're able to provide an excellent service. I don't know if that answers your question.

Mr Gravelle: Certainly it's helpful too, because I think the point is obviously the library boards with citizen majority can perform some functions that, as you say, are difficult for councillors to have the time for, let alone there's a sensitivity issue in terms of the whole question of censorship and other such issues. But I also think it's important probably to make some reference to the fact that the boards are not meant to be a complicating factor for the council in terms of these difficult downloading times. Probably those people who are lobbying for the boards might want to make that point. They're not there in order to fight with the councils; they're there to work with the councils in terms of the realities of the day.

Mr Ron Eydt: May I please try?

The Chair: Certainly.

Mr Eydt: I may not answer it, but I can certainly tell you in Waterloo we have two councillors on our board. The minute we saw what was coming out, we said, "You can abolish all of us and do it yourself," and they said, "We don't have time." I like the idea of checks and balances, quite frankly, and I want to answer the question that Mr Stewart asked, "Why is there no board of one that's ever happened?" It's all forbidden by law, you know.

Mr Stewart: I appreciate that.

Mr Eydt: I didn't understand that when you asked the question. It is forbidden by law, and thus we have to be in existence.

Mr Stewart: And it's not going to change.

Mr Eydt: But we don't have to be in existence if the present legislation goes through. Okay?

Mr Martin: As my colleague has said, you certainly focus very clearly on a very important aspect of this bill. As we sit here and hear the government tell us, "Don't worry, be happy; everything is the same, nothing has changed," you ask yourself, "Well, why are we doing this, then?"

Municipalities, in our estimation and our read of this bill, will have the power to dissolve library boards, a power that previously rested with the minister. There will no longer be a requirement that libraries have to cease operations 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. That's the logical extension of this.

They may say that won't happen. Well, we have an example in Ignace, where the municipality is now considering closing down a brand-new library that was built through volunteer effort, raising money in the community, charitable donations, a contribution from the provincial government. It's the newest building in town. The municipality is going to close that down, move the books over to the school and use that building as their municipal office building. That's the kind of thing that makes me nervous. The question I have to you is, in coming here to present today, what was it that drove you to make this kind of presentation? What is it that's making you nervous?

Mr MacNeil: There are a number of things that are making us nervous. We have a specific example of -- I think somebody used the word -- apolitical decisions, that it's important to maintain an arm's-length relationship. We had a bookmobile service that we were providing to the community. We were doing this as inexpensively as possible for us, but the numbers of people who were using the service continued to drop off, and the cost was beginning to rise because of maintenance on vehicles and so on. We made the decision to discontinue the bookmobile service. The small group that used our bookmobile service represented less than 3% of our circulation. A small group approached council and make a pitch to council, and the bookmobile service was continued for another year.

We made the same pitch the following year, and finally we were able to discontinue the bookmobile service, but it cost the library very valuable dollars that we could have been devoting to other services that would meet the needs of the community much better.

1050

Mr Shea: The deputant who said that he likes checks and balances really caught my attention in terms of the democratic principle. Let me just give a bit of a preamble here, because Mr Gravelle has been at great pains to try to suggest that AMO has been saying that it wants to abolish boards. In fact, that is not what AMO said. AMO has simply come up with the democratic principle that if you pay, you say. Library boards don't pay; municipal councils pay. They are the ones that are constitutionally charged with the responsibilities of municipal financing and providing the appropriate services for their citizens.

In terms of the fiscal disentanglement that's going on -- and, I might suggest, not just between municipalities and the provincial government but between the provincial government and the federal government -- in fact there is a principle being sought for revenue-neutral.

Unlike Mr Martin's suggestions that "Don't worry, be happy" or the sky is falling in, I think there's a very clear, practical reality that the province is trying to address and that is, let us ensure that those who pay are accountable and that the citizens can clearly see who is to be held accountable. Mr Martin likes to talk about his classic case of Ignace, and I point out to you that indeed that's happening under current legislation, not under the future legislation.

I want to go to this point about checks and balances, because the last time I looked, it is the council that appoints the library boards, not the people. So I don't know when the library board suddenly became the check and balance on the council.

I want to go directly to an issue that's embraced in your presentation. I'm sensitive, and I appreciate the concern about citizen involvement, but I want to ask you, why do you have the impression that councils would not want to continue to tap into and indeed embrace and encourage a continuation of volunteerism? Whoever.

Mr Eric Bow: There have been cases in the past where councils actually have sought legislation to abolish library boards and make them committees of council, which wouldn't have had any voluntary --

Mr Shea: Okay. Now, do they have a right to do that? Not whether they should or should not, but do they have a right to do that?

Mr Bow: They can today. Under the present act, they can go to the Legislature and ask for a private bill that would actually dissolve the library board and make it a committee of council. It is the right of the Legislature to pass such a bill.

The Chair: I know you want to pursue this --

Mr Shea: Yes, I really do.

The Chair: -- but unfortunately the preamble ate up some time. Gentlemen, I want to thank you for coming the distance that you did to make a presentation to the committee today.

CANADIAN UNION OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 217

The Chair: Would Jane Skinner please come forward or the representative from CUPE; it doesn't look like Jane is here, although I may be wrong. Good morning and welcome to the committee.

Mr Michael Robertson: Good morning, everyone on the panel. My name is Michael Robertson. I'm current president of our CUPE Local 217, the London Public Library employees. Arthur McClelland is second vice-president, and Valerie Chapman is our current treasurer.

The members of CUPE Local 217, the London Public Library employees, do not believe that Bill 109, Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997, hereinafter "the bill," will provide for inclusive and progressive library services in Ontario as stated in the bill's three purposes.

Taken in context with the myriad of legislative changes this government is proceeding with in education, health, labour and municipal statutes, it is our position that Ontario's public library system will be negatively impacted by the proposed changes this bill, if passed, would make to the Public Libraries Act, 1984.

The Public Libraries Act has nurtured and supported Ontarians' need for free and accessible educational and recreational materials for the past 146 years. Provincial library statistics reveal that 1,100 service sites welcomed 172 million visitations. This is a general average of seven visits per citizen. Well-developed collections of 28 million volumes help to answer the simple to complex queries of the public.

The London Public Library shared in this valuable service. In 1996 we answered over 633,000 reference questions, hosted 8,052 programs and circulated 3.8 million resource materials. We believe the 1984 act serves Ontario's communities well, judging by the latter data.

Minister Mushinski's intentions may be well-meaning when she said in her statement to the Legislature in January 1997:

"The province will continue to support the library system through partnerships, policy and funding of the province-wide network of shared resources, cooperative services and telecommunications links that connect Ontario's public libraries to each other and to global information networks. We want to ensure that our libraries continue to evolve and maintain their position at the forefront of the information revolution.

"Our libraries play an indispensable role in the education of people of all ages and abilities, and they make a significant contribution to the well-educated workforce which is one of Ontario's greatest economic strengths.

"This act will strengthen and safeguard our library system and help ensure that Ontario's libraries continue to play a central role in the lives of Ontarians."

These remarks would contribute more effectively to the upgrading and enhancement of the public library system if the bill did not seek to dismantle a well-established and visionary statute that we have in the Public Libraries Act, 1984.

Our concerns with Bill 109 include:

(1) The repeal of section 1, Public Libraries Act, 1984. In the bill's substitute definition of "minister to whom the administration of this act is assigned," will this mean that the Minister of Culture, a logical designation, will lose the responsibility of public libraries? There is a certain ambiguity in this definition. It is our hope that "minister" will mean Minister of Culture, as stated in the Public Libraries Act, 1984.

(2) Section 2, dealing with the purpose as defined by the minister, "This clause has been introduced in order to describe and clarify the role of public libraries in a knowledge-based society and the role of the province-wide public network." Library employees have a very strong understanding of the role of the public library in society. We are glad to see the library's importance recognized in this statement. We do, however, question the operational reality of these tenets in the purposes:

"1. To ensure public libraries continue to successfully provide for Ontarians' information needs." We suggest deleting the words "continue to successfully." This clause will then echo the government's active commitment to this important service.

"2. To support Ontarians' requirements for access to educational, research and recreational materials in a knowledge-based society." Ontario's libraries have successfully fulfilled this mandate for the past 146 years and strive to continue. We endorse this statement.

"3. To allow Ontarians to benefit from access to local, provincial and global information through a province-wide public library network." We support the intent of this clause but have serious reservations as to how this purpose would be enacted, particularly when the grants to public libraries are being phased out. Libraries, especially in smaller communities, that would have used those funds to purchase communications equipment and ongoing upgrades to enable their patrons to participate in this network will either be very limited in access to the new technology or denied the opportunities to which the bill alludes.

Finally, is there really a need for three purposes? We suggest one mission statement for public libraries that would combine the best features of the three present clauses.

1100

Addressing board vacancies: Section 11, part I, of the Public Libraries Act, 1984, provided for notice of vacancies on library boards. The bill allows councils to appoint members to a board. This new process may be expedient to the needs of a council or board but it is questionably undemocratic. History would be repeating itself in a negative manner. Prior to the libraries act of 1984, closed board appointments were commonplace. The public did not have an opportunity to compete for such positions. We do not wish to have boards by appointment only. Maintaining public notice for vacancies is a much fairer process for citizen participation.

The section on bylaws: As this section reads, boards may be created by councils, but the direction and control of library matters continues to rest with the appointing council. Boards might well become committees of council under this bill. It is of great concern to us that the current requirement for a citizen majority on a library board would be eliminated by the bill. Councils that appoint their chosen members might not be able to serve their constituents' library needs to the best of their abilities if they are simultaneously juggling several other municipal duties.

We would like to see the interests of the public and separate school boards maintained on the library board. We suggest that the bill retain the commonsense guidelines of the 1984 act, which established the size, composition, qualifications, vacancies, reappointments, disqualifications and expense reimbursement for board membership.

The powers and duties of the board: Whereas some members of the library environment may welcome these guidelines, we are more cautious. In section 10(1)(a), the phrase "the community's unique needs" may be taken rather literally. A library service should be inclusive of all needs in the community. We would suggest deleting the word "unique."

Section 10(1)(b), the phrase "may cooperate with other boards to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service linked to the province-wide public library network." This option is questionable, especially when considering the massive funding cuts that have reduced public library and municipal budgets. Without funds to maintain the equipment to link into the provincial network, some communities might be denied access to the resources.

Section 10(1)(e), the phrase "shall regulate the time and place and the notice to be given for the holding of meetings of the board, the quorum at meetings of the board, and the procedure in all things at meetings of the board." As this clause reads, there is no guarantee for public attendance or participation at board meetings. The 1984 act clearly provided for public notice and participation at board meetings. We firmly endorse those provisions and call for their reinstatement.

Section 10(2), the passage "To the extent it considers it expedient, the board may,

"(a) use any outside services or personnel;

"(b) use or link into any financial, accounting or administrative systems; and

"(c) adopt the policies and procedures of the appointing council or councils."

Contracting out of library services is a very sensitive and stressful issue for library staff. This clause is equated with direct job loss and the potential for downgrading of high-level, competent service. Knowledgeable, well-trained and dedicated library employees provide the public with expert guidance through the constantly expanding information labyrinth. Hastily made decisions for the sake of cost-cutting do not result in the best products or services.

Under fees: "A board may charge for public library services in accordance with the Municipal Act and any regulations made under that act." The amendment of Ontario regulation 26/96 by regulations 217/96 and 382/96 of the Municipal Act allows the public free access to libraries, free in-house use of library resources, free borrowing of printed items and free use of specially formatted materials for disabled patrons. We are extremely supportive of these four clauses.

The majority of public library employees and members of the Ontario Library Association, however, strongly disagree with the provision for lending charges by material format other than those listed above. The bill would allow councils to set their own arbitrary fee rates in the absence of a recommended provincial schedule. Would the public then experience a varying range of service fees from system to system? That would not be a desired solution.

The bill cancels regulation 976 of the 1984 act, which exempted items such as audio and visual resources from borrowing fees. If format charges are introduced, many citizens who are victims of social and economic difficulties may be denied the use of vital resources that have been freely available to them. This provision would contribute to the philosophy that information is a privilege for those who can afford it, not a right that should continue to be equitably available to everyone.

Grants: During the past two years public library services have been negatively affected by the reduction of operating grants per household estimated at $24 million. To cope with this funding loss, libraries have limited service hours, cut children and adult programs and slashed collections budgets, which has reduced the availability of current resources.

The eventual phase-out of grants may eliminate the total library budgets of some Ontario communities. Without these conditional grants, and the loss of general transfer funds of some $600 million, small community councils might find it expedient to use these financial pressures to justify the cancellation of library service as they struggle to balance municipal services. In spite of the minister's reassurance that a general reinvestment fund will help councils adjust to their new responsibilities, libraries are not guaranteed special consideration, as this funding can be applied to any service.

If economically weak communities lose their libraries, and the relatively strong systems are forced to downgrade services, we fear the result will be a provincial patchwork instead of a continued growth of a vibrant library network -- a stark contrast to the intent of the bill's purpose.

Some final remarks: We cannot support Bill 109 as it exists. The government's intent is that we continue to enjoy the development of a strong public library system. The reality of this bill will be quite different. Increased council control, reduced citizen participation on boards, user fees, cancelled funding and potential library closures will contribute to a limited and weakened service alternative.

In an interview with the Quill and Quire, Minister Mushinski would not indicate how the bill would improve library service in Ontario. We sincerely hope this committee will convey to the minister the public's concerns and their suggestions for improvements to Bill 109 and public library service expressed in these hearings.

The Vice-Chair (Mrs Julia Munro): Thank you very much. Your presentation was exactly 15 minutes. I want to thank you for appearing today. We appreciate the comments you've made.

1110

JOHN MARTEL

The Vice-Chair: Will Mr Martel please come forward. Good morning, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 15 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Mr John Martel: Allow me to introduce myself. I'm a former warden of Essex county and, as such, I was a member of the Essex County Library board. I'm currently a member of the library board of the Windsor Public Library. I am now past chair -- I was chairman for the past two years -- and had been on that board for five years altogether. I'm also a member of the Southern Ontario Library Service board.

I'm coming to you today not representing those boards but as a private citizen who has been involved in a number of library venues, and I did not prepare something in writing. However, I've told Donna that I will e-mail a summary of my comments. I like to speak rather than to read.

Bill 109, from my perspective, is a very much improved act. I think it's a good act. It might need a little fine-tuning. I really agree with the focus and the thrust. I can really live with it the way it is; however, I think you should consider some tune-ups or some minor things. I cannot agree with people who say, for example, that this is going to be the death of libraries. I'm a little more broad-minded than that, so please take these as maybe suggestions for improvement.

First of all, I'm quite pleased to see the removal of a mandated board of education trustees or representation on the previous boards. Speaking from experience, at our board we found that to be a detriment rather than a benefit. It all depends on who is appointed.

However, I want to talk about some specific sections.

In regard to clause 6(a), about the size and composition of the board, may I suggest that you add a minimum and a maximum number for membership on boards. I suggest you look at at least three. We had some discussions at our Windsor public library board, and we agreed as a board that it should be a minimum of five and a maximum of nine.

If you did that and jointly added as well that you have a minimum citizen participation -- I would suggest that if it's three, it be 30%, in other words at least one public member out of three, and if you have up to nine members, that it be 40%.

I think it should be mandated that there be some citizen-at-large participation. I don't think at all that it's required that it be a majority of citizen participation. I don't think that's necessary. I agree with the principle that if councils are paying for the library -- with our library, well over 90% is being paid for by the city -- they can appoint who they choose. To me, that is extremely important.

Knowing the good city and county councils in the past, if it's necessary to have more than 50% of councillors sit on the library board, perhaps because of problems or perhaps because they want to change direction, that's fine.

Having been on a county library board, I can tell you that it worked very well having a majority of council members on the board. I don't see it as necessary at all to go back to one or the other majority. If you say simply a minimum, I think that will work quite well.

In clause 6(b), under qualifications, one thing that's really important is that you put back in there, across the province, that there be Canadian citizenship or landed immigrant status. I'm a firm believer that this is clearly very important. I'm not so sure about whether there should be an age requirement. I think some of the young people we have would do very well sitting on a board. Perhaps 18 years might be a minimum that should go there across the province.

The other comment I have is my preference would be to see residency status within the confines of the coverage area of that particular board, whatever it be. If it's amalgamated city, county or whatever it is, I think residency is an important factor in terms of qualifications.

In regard to fees, I agree with the section that allows municipalities to charge fees. I would like, however, a call for input on what exactly should be the core services that are so-called free -- I don't think there is anything that's really free -- and what services could be added on as enhanced service.

Let me give you an example: We have a very active friends-of-the-library group in Windsor. A lot of people are willing to pay a little bit of extra money in order to get into a selected book-of-the-month-club type of thing. What we are doing in the city of Windsor, very simply, is we're calling it a book-of-the-month club, and it's being operated as a subservice by the friends of the library. In reality, it's a library service. People are paying a couple of bucks extra money so that when the recent best seller comes out, there are more copies available through the friends group. Now, it's fine. The friends group is very good at doing this, but really I consider that a library service and we should be able to charge for that enhanced service, if you wish, of participating, of not having to wait maybe a month or two months to get the most recent best seller. So I'm saying to you, let's open the minds and so on and so forth.

People will say, "What about charging for a library card?" I think there could be a minimum charge for a library card. I don't see anything wrong with that. For people who are really worried that the senior citizen and the people on general welfare can't access the service because they would have to pay for it, I think the solution to that, very realistically and very simply, would be that if someone is on welfare or someone is a low-income senior citizen, they could be assigned a card by the welfare office as they would receive anything else. They could be assigned a card every year or every six months for whatever the term of time it is that they are on assistance.

Two other comments: One is on provincial interest. I think the provincial interest is extremely important, that it be maintained, and when I'm talking about provincial interest I'm talking about the ability for the province to set standards for service that should be maintained by all entities that call themselves libraries. There should be some minimum standards. If you have minimum standards, however, the province will have to fund a certain amount of money into those standards. That would be helpful, especially for the small libraries that have less than 50% funding at the municipal level now. They are the ones that are most likely to be hit hard by the cuts in grants.

I think the other part of the provincial initiative is to fund all of the infrastructure services that allow interlibrary operations and the dissemination of information, for example the work that is now being done by SOLS, by OLS North and to a lesser degree by Metro reference library. I think it's very important a provincial database be maintained and that it continue to be funded, because that really benefits all the libraries of Ontario. I do, however, ask that the funding be equitable throughout the province for that. If you don't know, in the last rounds of cuts, it was fairly disturbing to see Metro reference library receive a 5% to 10% cut and SOLS and OLS North receive over a 30% cut in operating grants. To me, that really doesn't work very well.

I urge a continuation of capital grants, but I would tie to the capital grants enhanced dollars, if you wish, for libraries that basically go jointly with other ventures. In other words, that a library go into a school, be it a college, a university, a separate school or an elementary school, or goes in with a community centre. To me, the whole idea of joint ventures and having a one-stop shop for a lot of the services is very important and libraries should become part of that.

That summarizes my comments. Thank you for listening to me. I think the bill is good. If you just improve it in a few sections, as a member of the public and as a library user, I think you're on the right track.

1120

Mr Martin: Thanks for coming. It's indeed good that we hear from time to time from individuals speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of an organization. That's helpful in this exercise. I agree with some of the recommendations you've made. As you may imagine, I have some difficulty with some other parts. Perhaps I can just summarize and then ask you two or three short questions that maybe you can just kind of bang off.

You're suggesting that there be, in terms of boards in the legislation, a recommended guarantee of a minimum number and a maximum number. So you're obviously in favour of boards and you think it should be defined to some numbers, but you're not supportive of enshrining a majority of community citizens.

Mr Martel: No.

Mr Martin: One of the questions I would ask you then is to maybe elaborate just a little bit more on that, why you would want minimum-maximum and to guarantee a board but at the same time not want a majority of that board to be from the community by way of citizens, as opposed to elected officials.

You talked about -- this is something that has come up on a couple of other occasions -- the issue of councils having a say because they pay, so they should have the right to appoint members to the board. It sounds a bit to me like the old patronage system of operating. I guess it lends itself to the possibility of abuse and also a lack of consistency, because as councils change, the potential there is to change whole boards of directors of libraries to suit the political flavour of that particular election. I'd just like you to maybe comment on that a bit.

The other one that jumped out at me and grabbed me by the throat is this issue of issuing special cards to people on welfare. Now we have in the library system a wonderful universally accessible resource for everybody who lives in a community. You're suggesting that maybe we might set aside one group and give them cards so that when they come in they have to identify themselves as being on assistance. How do you do that without causing that kind of process to actually happen?

My last point is I appreciated your support for continued funding of regional services because, as you know, smaller boards particularly are going to be tremendously in need of support from larger boards and there's going to be a need for a cooperating environment to be out there, so I would certainly be in sync with you on that. I'll leave it at that. Maybe some comment from you?

Mr Martel: Let me go perhaps backwards, really briefly. I think the issue of provincial funding for specific projects is extremely important and it needs to be maintained. In regard to the issuing of library cards, the libraries don't need to know who issued the card. The library management issues cards; other cards that are exactly the same can be strictly issued by community and social services of the particular municipality. There would be no identification which would change on that particular card.

About a year and a half ago we actually looked at that possibility to see if it could be done. We talked with our head of social services in the city of Windsor. It could very easily be done. Library cards should have a limit.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but members should try to keep their preambles a little shorter because it does not give enough time to question.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): One of the criticism of the bill we've heard this morning is the fact that there's a possibility that citizens will not have a majority on the boards, probably a real possibility. If elected representatives form the majority of boards, what impact would that have, either positive or negative, on the library system?

Mr Martel: None. County library boards have operated for years with a majority of elected officials and I was part of that. Having been on the council before, I can tell you that councillors are extremely busy. Most councils will be very happy to let a library board operate with a majority of citizen participation. It's only in extreme circumstances that they would want to sit in and to take over the majority for some specific things. Otherwise, I think it would work very well if you have a minimum, as I said, of 30% or 40%.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much, Mr Martel. You said at the beginning you're generally supportive. You don't think this legislation will result in closing branches, but we've talked already with somebody this morning from the small public libraries who said that in terms of the provincial operating transfers, when they are cut off, there are at least 30 local communities that will just lose their libraries because the municipalities can't support them.

I wonder if you can clarify, because I heard you make some reference to that specific point and perhaps I didn't hear it clearly enough. But if you could clarify what your thoughts were on that, because those seem to be just simply the facts, that when the provincial money is gone, the operating funds are gone, at least 30, and we think many more, may just simply have to close because they haven't got the support from the municipalities.

Mr Martel: I dealt with that under the provincial interest type of thing. Under the provincial interest, I think the province should take a look at the funding level and the small libraries that are funded currently at less than 50% by municipalities should be looked at for special grants. That was my suggestion.

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

OXFORD COUNTY LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Trevor Cuthbert please come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Trevor Cuthbert: Mr Chairman and committee members, my name is Trevor Cuthbert. I am the chair of the Oxford County Library board. Sam Coghlan who is our chief librarian. The board has requested that I address this committee on the board's behalf.

Oxford County Library board would like to inform the committee of two concerns it has regarding Bill 109. The first is in regard to the proposed new subsection 5(1), which will require Oxford County Library to undergo an unnecessary expense in changing its name. This is economic reality time. The board's second and greater concern is with the proposed new section 14 of the bill regarding fees for library service.

Subsection 5(1): The proposed new subsection is apparently intended to provide more flexibility in the naming of a public library. It would remove the requirement that the name of a public library include its municipality's name. However, it would also alter the requirement as to what must be included in a public library's name.

The existing Public Libraries Act requires that a county library be called "your name here County Library," that the name of a union library end with the words "Union Library," and that others be named "name of municipality Public Library."

Subsection 5(1) as proposed would require that county libraries and union libraries both adopt the same naming practice as the others. It would require that all public libraries end their names with the words "public library."

Oxford County Library is, of course, named in accord with existing legislation. Our name is Oxford County Library, as it has been since the library's creation in 1965, 32 years ago. The frivolous bid of Bill 109 to pull a superficial veil of bland uniformity over library nomenclature will make it necessary that we change our name to whatever we want, followed by "public library."

The closest that we will be allowed to approximate our existing name will be if we call ourselves the Oxford County Public Library. This will be an unhelpful and otherwise unnecessary expenditure of dollars and staff resources on matters such as changes of address and amendments to legal documents.

Oxford County Library board requests that the proposed subsection be amended, either by deleting the word "public" or by adding a grandfathering clause whereby existing county libraries can retain their existing name.

Section 14: The Oxford County Library board believes the province should pass Bill 109 in a form that truly reflects its short title, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, 1997. Local government must be given the choice of whether to charge for public library service or not.

1130

Bill 109 cannot be considered in isolation. Bill 109 must be viewed in the context of the several legislative changes that have been introduced as a result of the government's so-called mega-week announcements. The fact that section 14 makes reference to other pieces of legislation, ie, the Municipal Act and the regulations thereunder, demonstrates the degree to which all these legislative actions are interrelated.

A principle that should temper the extent to which responsibilities are shifted between levels of government as part of mega-week should be the principle of "pay for say." In other words, if either level of government is going to be involved to a substantial extent in setting policy regarding a particular service, that level of government must contribute to the funding of that service.

The new section 30 proposed by Bill 109 will eliminate the requirement that the province contribute to the funding of libraries. Coupled with the short title of Bill 109, the Local Control of Public Libraries Act, the proposed section 30 makes it clear that the general intent of Bill 109 is to devolve control of public libraries solely to local control.

However, the second half of the proposed section 14 clearly contradicts this general intent: "A board may charge fees for public library services." Fine. The first half of the proposed section 14 is acceptable, as it places the decision at the local level. But Oxford County Library board's support for section 14 as proposed cannot extend to its second half: "in accordance with the Municipal Act and any regulations made under that act." Although the province will cease paying, it expects to continue to say what a public library can or cannot do.

Oxford County Library is a county library, meaning that we serve a largely rural area. We operate 17 branches, with a minimal draw on the tax dollar. We serve just over 50,000 residents of one town and five townships. We combine administrative efficiency, through centralization where appropriate, with an emphasis on local responsiveness to local need.

Oxford County Library continues to maintain at least three branches per township, because that is what local people want. We think of our library as one big library with several small rooms, with the rooms happening to be in different communities.

We have been struggling for several years with the same fiscal challenges that confront the provincial government. Raising taxes has not been an acceptable option for addressing the pressures of increasing prices, pay equity, increasing demands of government regulation and increasing demand for service. We have had to exercise that spirit of innovation mixed with cautious empiricism -- "I'll believe it when I see it" -- that characterizes the best of the rural attitude.

Oxford County Library recently moved one branch into a local school, sharing space and resources with the school library. We recently made arrangements with a local community volunteer group in the hamlet of Harrington whereby they will operate a local library service using volunteers and we will provide the books. We have secured one-time funding of over $500,000 from the federal government to provide Internet access to our rural communities and to initiate local partnerships that will minimize ongoing costs, while strengthening Oxford county's status as a learning community.

Oxford County Library board has recognized the need to develop different ways of doing what must be done. We have begun. Why must provincial legislation go so far in denying us the flexibility to make, locally, the decisions that are best for our local communities?

Oxford County Library board recently considered a proposal to close 13 of our 17 branches. Public response to this idea was uncharacteristically vocal for quiet Oxford county. People told board members and local politicians in no uncertain terms that their local library was important to them and vital to their community. They also said they would be willing to pay user fees.

The committee has heard, or surely will hear, arguments that public library service provides a benefit to the community as a whole and that the barrier to public library service created by user fees compromises that benefit. Oxford County Library board believes that the decision as to the value of public library service is a local decision. However, if the Legislature disagrees with the Oxford County Library board and states that it is a provincial matter, a significant inconsistency must be pointed out in Bill 109.

Despite attributing a value to public library service that has provincial significance, Bill 109 would continue to maintain public library service as permissive, rather than mandatory, for local governments. Surely, before the province insists that public library service be free everywhere, it should first insist that public library service be provided everywhere.

A further inconsistency exists between Bill 109 and the draft regulation to amend O Reg 26/96 made under the Municipal Act, which has been distributed by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. This draft regulation would require that a public library provide its service without fee only to residents. Surely, if the principle of free library service is important enough to be enshrined in provincial legislation, application of the principle should not include a limit that could further the balkanization of library service between municipalities.

Finally, Oxford County Library would like to stress the third inconsistency. The province insists on declaring a provincial interest, yet refuses to retain responsibility for some level of funding to support that interest. The government may contend that the province has such an overriding interest in library service to protect the principle of free public library service. The government has argued that such matters of principle could create the necessity of establishing a provincial policy where provincial funding is not forthcoming.

Even if situations exist whereby the province can demand a say without any pay -- a possibility which Oxford County Library board does not concede -- free public library service is not such a situation. User fees are not simply a matter of principle. User fees are a source of revenue. If the possibility of utilizing this revenue source is going to be denied us by the province, in all fairness the province must provide an alternative. "Pay for say" does apply in regard to user fees for public library service. In the absence of a willingness to pay, the province should not attempt to impose its say.

In closing, the problems that Oxford County Library have with Bill 109 can be summed up by contrasting its short title and the purpose behind Bill 109. The proposed new section 2 states its purpose. It does not contain the words "local control."

Oxford County Library board requests that Bill 109 be altered to reflect its own short title and to remove any provincially imposed limitations on the ability of local authorities to make the decision whether or not to charge user fees for public library service.

Thank you very much for your consideration of our submission and my quick reading thereof.

Mr Young: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I want to ask you a question to which I think the answer was in here, but sometimes you're reading and listening at the same time. You're right: In the purpose preamble of our bill, we agree with more local control, that you have the pay and you should have the say. That's what the bill is trying to do. The minister tried to strike a balance in what she heard in her consultations and with concerns like yours. Can you tell me more specifically, or perhaps in different language, exactly where in the bill we are preventing you from having local control? How are we doing that?

Mr Cuthbert: The economic reality of the library system is that, number one, it is not free. It never has been free and it never will be free. We in Oxford county are running this year on funding per capita of around $15. This compares really favourably to places like London, Toronto, Brantford, Kitchener, that run about $40 per capita. The economic reality is that whoever pays controls the library, and we have reached the stage this year in Oxford county where we do not have a book budget. In other words, we are running the library for a year without being able to purchase books.

Mr Young: So you might want to make the choice to close a branch and buy more books.

Mr Cuthbert: There's no money in it. There is no choice. The choice comes down to the funding.

Mr Young: I want to make a positive comment. Your idea of moving a branch into a local school and sharing the space and the resources is extremely innovative. It's the kind of thing that other areas should be looking at. There's only one taxpayer, and if you can get more books and more information into more people's hands, that's the way to go. Those are very innovative things you're doing, and I congratulate you.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you, Mr Cuthbert, and hello, Sam. We're old friends from Thunder Bay.

At this stage, what amount do you receive in operating funds from the province?

Mr Cuthbert: For this year? Around $112,000.

Mr Gravelle: In terms of losing $112,000 within the next year or so, based on what you're saying, do you anticipate that user fees in whatever form can make up that difference?

Mr Cuthbert: We have no idea. The situation we face is that in our budget for 1997, the municipality is not providing funds to cover the loss of the provincial grant.

Mr Gravelle: That seems to be pretty common.

Mr Cuthbert: But it also happens to be our book budget, almost dollar for dollar; consequently, in 1997 we are not buying books. We have a library system, and the books are essentially its reason for being, and it can't buy books. The only solution you can provide, as far as all the other deep philosophical arguments as to board makeup and stuff like that, is that you provide consistent funding, enforce consistent funding, or get out of the road so we can do what we have to do to survive.

1140

Mr Gravelle: But do you not feel there should still be some provincial involvement in funding, in terms of the whole educational --

Mr Cuthbert: It's moot. We either have the funding and we're going to survive, or we're not going to have the funding. You either lead, you follow or you get out of the road. What we face at the moment is a situation whereby over the last 10 years our funding has decreased on a usable dollar basis in terms of support of the library, and we've reached the stage now where we cannot purchase books. This is a reality. We are starting our begging for books phase now. We don't want economic shackles placed on us where we have to survive. It's really easy to look at budgets when you're working on $40 per capita. When you're down to $15 per capita, it becomes reality. That's the reality we have to live with and we see this legislation as imposing shackles on us that we don't need.

Mr Martin: I appreciate the honesty and the bluntness in this presentation, because I think you hit the nail right on the head. This is about downloading; this is about the provincial government getting out of the business of delivering library services. What you're saying is, "If you're going to do that, give us the tools to make the decisions we need to make." Those decisions may not be pretty or acceptable or what you, in your heart of hearts, if you have a commitment to library services and universal access, would necessarily in the best of all possible worlds want to do. I think we need to be clear about that, that this is going to cause tremendous shifts, is going to cause some pain, particularly to those at the local level who are trying to make do.

There's one piece in your presentation that we haven't heard before, and with your very real understanding, I'd like you to expand on it a bit. That's the change of name. Why? How does this fit in? It seems to be out there as a bit of an anomaly, but perhaps it isn't. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Mr Cuthbert: It's going to cost us money and it serves no purpose. We have to redo all sorts of signage, we have to redo all sorts of paper and legal documents and start worrying about something that is ephemeral; it's a piece of fluff.

Mr Martin: Chair, perhaps we could ask somebody in the government to explain why it is that the government is doing this so we can all understand.

Mr Cuthbert: You mentioned one thing at the start about the downloading. I don't believe the downloading can be blamed entirely, in that this has been occurring in Oxford over the last 10 years. In 1985 we were running a book budget of about $150,000, and by 1996 it was down to $100,000; allowing for inflation, it was down to $75,000. That hits three different governments, so that's not the issue. What is is the disparity that exists between the cities and the country, in that most cities have funding at the level of around $40 per capita, give or take, while the average for county libraries in 1995 was about $26 per capita. There is the big problem right there. The average for book inventory turnover in 1995 was running around five to seven years. In Oxford county, it runs 149 years.

The Chair: Mr Cuthbert, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're well beyond the allotted time. Thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation.

MIDDLESEX COUNTY LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Margaret Rule please come forward? Good morning, and welcome to the committee.

Mrs Margaret Rule: Good morning. My presentation is quite short, which I guess leaves me on the firing line for questions, but it's comforting to be situated in the program between our county library to the east and our CARML group, county librarians throughout Ontario.

My name is Margaret Rule. I am the CEO for the Middlesex County Library board. As you no doubt are aware, Middlesex county is the upside-down horseshoe area that surrounds the city of London on three sides. Our library system serves a rural population of 48,700 people through a network of 18 branch libraries, eight book deposits, and a direct-to-mailbox service.

The board has directed me to speak to you regarding three areas of the proposed legislation; the first one is the governance issue. The Middlesex County Library board has no objection to the proposed governance changes. As a county board, we have successfully operated with a majority of county councillors, four, and a minority of citizen appointees, three, for many years. We work very closely with county council and in many ways function as a committee of council. However, our citizen appointees bring a valuable perspective to the board and they are most often library users, whereas the councillors are often not themselves library users. The board chair reports monthly to county council, and I participate on county staff committees as a department head. The library works cooperatively with other county departments and the county administers our accounts and payroll. Our employees are considered county employees.

The second item is fees for service. The Middlesex County Library board provides an excellent basic library service. That's a very objective opinion, of course. We lend books and other materials through a shared collection, we offer reference materials and some staff assistance at the larger branches and, by referral, to a shared, enhanced reference collection and expertise at our library administrative office, preschool story-time programming and a summer reading program. We participate in the province-wide interlibrary loan network. We offer direct-to-mailbox service for the visually challenged and homebound patrons. At nine branches we offer public-access Internet, which gives our customers access to the London and area job bank. At three branches we have electronic reference resources such as CD encyclopaedias. At all branches we provide electronic access to the Middlesex County Information Network; this is a database of human services available to our residents.

We do not believe that charging fees for a few library services will be practical or in the best interests of our ratepayers. In any case, they will not enable our board to generate significant revenue. Opportunities for revenue generation are fewer for rural library boards. In saying that, we do fund-raising for branch and collection needs and we make extensive use of volunteers, cooperative placements and community service work.

The proposed legislation distinguishes between print and non-print information for the purposes of free or fee. The world is moving towards electronic delivery of information. An example that came to mind is that the Canadian Encyclopedia new edition is now available only on CD. All levels of government are moving towards electronic delivery. As previously stated, we offer access to the London and area job bank of Human Resources Development, Canada, at nine branches via the Internet. The Middlesex County Library board believes that information is information and there should be free use of all library materials regardless of format.

The final area of comment is the provincial operating grant. In 1995, the provincial per household grant of $174,000 to our board represented 18% of our operating budget. If library service is to continue at its present level, county council will have to make up for the loss of the provincial per household grant as proposed in the legislation. County council has done this in 1996, when $35,000 was cut, and again in 1997, so we have not received funding cuts as a result of that because our local council has chosen to make it up.

But the situation may provide a difficult climate for Middlesex County Library in the future. As competition for the tax dollar intensifies at the county and municipal level, our library may not receive sufficient funds to maintain services. However, as a county library system, our supporting municipalities are sharing resources to provide the best possible library service. We believe that our larger unit of service and our cooperative approach, which has been in place since 1963, by the way, fits the philosophy and spirit of the 1990s and beyond. Those are my board's comments.

1150

Mr Gravelle: You clearly have a county council that's very supportive of the library in terms of making up the $35,000 in the last two years. Have you or anybody on your board had an opportunity to talk to them about whether they are going to be able to maintain this support with the operating transfers being cut and then completely eliminated? Do you have any sense of that?

Mrs Rule: It all depends on how the transfers, the dollar amounts, weigh out. If we have to make up funds for social services or roads or some of those other services, it will be hard I think for the library to keep its foot on the line, so to speak. Having said that, council is aware of the great public support there is out in the county for its library system. I think they're aware that it is a very appreciated service, but it is perhaps considered less essential than some of the other services county council provides.

Mr Gravelle: That's certainly one of the concerns we've expressed, that when you're putting the municipalities in a position where there really is a competition between needs, whether it's road repairs or seniors' homes or libraries, one can say they want to maintain the support, but competing interests can be -- we certainly think that's wrong. What we keep hearing in the presentations, especially from the county -- and I think Oxford county was much the same too, although they had a different approach in terms of just freeing things up, but you make it clear that user fees will not make up the difference.

What are we looking at? Unless the province maintains some kind of provincial support, and the counties can't do it, are we looking at reduced service? The minister keeps saying in her comments that this is going to improve the library service. I just find it impossible to understand how that can happen unless there is a maintenance of some kind of provincial funding support.

Mrs Rule: Yes, I think it's going to be difficult, and if the tax base erodes and you start imposing fees, people are going to say, "What do I get for my taxes that I'm paying to support the library system if I have to pay a fee to access materials?" and so on. It's just a worrisome unknown for those of us who work in libraries or serve on boards.

Mr Gravelle: Have you started developing contingency plans? You don't even want to spend your energies on that, I wouldn't think, but have you found yourself being forced to do that simply because the legislation could put you in a position where it's going to be impossible to maintain the kind of support you've had?

Mrs Rule: We've been moving into a contingency mode for about the last five years because it was obvious changes were coming in municipal services. We're trying, but the public doesn't want a fundamental change in our service delivery. They're not prepared to give up their small branches in the county. Our book budget is one area and salaries are our other big one. We've retooled and redesigned as much as we can. I guess there's always more one can do, but it's going to be difficult.

Mr Martin: Thank you for coming. You raise some interesting questions. You make the point at the end of your presentation that over the last two years you've had a reduction of approximately $35,000 and the municipality has picked that up. You refer to the fact that there has been over the last number of years a move towards a downsizing of different services because of the lack of money in the system.

The presenter before you from Oxford raised that question as well, the question of money. We have not, though, in our history seen the kind of downloading that is being proposed now, which will see municipalities that contributed last year $35,000 to your pot having to absorb the cost of health services, social services, ambulances and fire services in the massive way they're going to be asked to do. Anybody who's done the numbers will tell you that the room that was freed up by way of the education tax will not cover that. So you in Middlesex country are going to find yourselves in a very difficult situation and are going to be faced with some very difficult decisions. I think that was pointed out very clearly by the presenter before you.

When I look at what you offer now by way of 18 branch libraries, eight book deposits and direct mail, that's a very integrated, complicated and probably important service to your community. No government has ever, that I can remember, decided to close or limit library access or services in order to give a tax break to a few of our more wealthy citizens. What are the difficult decisions as you anticipate what's coming at you, that the Middlesex County Library board will have to make in order to deal with this if changes aren't forthcoming, if this government is not willing to change its mind re the provincial contribution to libraries?

Mrs Rule: As I mentioned, the two significant areas of our budget where we can recoup big dollars if we need to are salaries and the book budget. If we cut the book budget, what business are we in? And the salaries? We're a service organization. We'd have to have fewer outlets or open fewer hours throughout. In our branches, we have one branch two hours a week, that's a small library; the largest one is 27 hours a week. You tie up your resources if you're not open. You've got all your resources inaccessible to your ratepayers. Those are the difficult areas.

Mrs Munro: I want to, first of all, just remind you that, when you were talking about the issues that Mr Martin raised, of course the notion that this would not work out equitably for Ontario's taxpayers is clearly a fundamental issue in terms of this government. The idea of having a contingency fund where people would have access to moneys, where there has been an imbalance, obviously is part of that whole process.

I want to talk about an issue that you've raised under the province-wide interlibrary loan service, because the suggestion of this in your presentation identifies it as primarily a book service and yet on the next page you talk about the importance of the new technologies and information. Some of the issues that presenters have raised have neglected this particular aspect to the provincial role and I wonder if you would like to comment on what you see as a benefit in that new technology by the province taking that leadership role.

Mrs Rule: The province has certainly taken a leadership role in providing an Internet home page, the Southern Ontario Library Service home page, which is pulling together resources that are useful for libraries and for reference and so on, and also making available Internet accounts. For two years we haven't had to pay from our operating budget for some staff accounts to the Internet. So that's been very useful. The electronic network I think will be as important as the book interlibrary loan network as we move into the next century. Certainly we're going through a transition; the same thought process, but it's in a different format.

Mrs Munro: Do you see that as giving you some opportunity to create some efficiencies and provide better service?

Mrs Rule: Definitely, and it certainly links us together. We feel very much more connected I think when we have an electronic way to talk and share.

Mrs Munro: If I have one final opportunity here, I'm just wondering, when you were talking about the support that you've received from the county in the kind of funding, do you see that they appreciate the need for this electronic information, and accepting their appreciation of that new direction, do you see that they would translate that into continued support for your role?

Mrs Rule: Yes, I do. In fact as I mentioned, I function sort of as a department head within the county staff structure. We're in the midst of planning a wide-area network for Middlesex county that would connect local municipalities, local branch libraries, our county administrative office and the county library, the home for the aged and so on in a wide-area network. That I guess has been a strategy our board has had, which is to make us part of the county to the point where we can't just be cut off because we're integrated into the operations of what the county is doing.

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

1200

COUNTY AND REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY LIBRARIANS

The Chair: Would Ed George please come forward. Mr George, welcome to the committee.

Mr Ed George: I'm here representing CARML, the association of the chief executive officers for the 17 county libraries in Ontario and the one library cooperative. The presentation I have for you this morning follows the order in the Local Control of Public Libraries Act. I'll just highlight some things for you.

Our first point is that we have some concern about the inclusion of the words "continue to successfully" in the purpose clause.

The second point is of concern, especially to county libraries. Under subsections 3(1) and (2), every county library and county library board already operating is continued. Therefore, naming the county of Oxford, which is already operating a county library and has a county library board, in subsection 4(3) seems incorrect and serves to confuse the point that this section applies only to jurisdictions that have not already established a county, regional or district municipality library. That's something that needs to be clarified. Furthermore, CARML very strongly endorses the inclusion of regional municipality libraries in subsection 4(3). You'll note that the Wentworth and the Waterloo regional municipality libraries are members of CARML.

Point 3 warrants a lot of thought as well. Bill 109 in many ways does not seem to anticipate the significant restructuring currently under way among municipalities at both the upper and lower tiers. I'm sure you're aware that in Kent county there's a county library, and they may very well become a model for restructuring in other counties with or without county libraries throughout the province. One of the two proposals of Commissioner Peter Meyboom will be implemented: a one-tier municipal system which would consolidate Kent county and city of Chatham; or a two-tier system which consolidates the 21 municipalities in Kent county into five and maintains the municipality of the city of Chatham.

Under this Local Control of Public Libraries Act, subsection 4(3) makes no obvious provision for the single-tier situation. With the reduction in the total number of municipalities -- Kent going from 21 to five -- the dynamics of the two-thirds provision would be very different than they have been in the current act.

Furthermore, Bill 26, the Savings and Restructuring Act, provided that service delivery could be done at an upper or a lower tier. The implication is that this service delivery would be for all municipalities, not just those requesting it. To use my own municipality county library as an example, we have 21 municipalities, but because the Public Libraries Act has been permissive legislation, two of those 21 municipalities operate their own library service; they are not members of the Essex county library system. This provision under Bill 26 was reinforced by the voting procedure, which calls for a simple majority vote of the local municipalities with a majority of the electors and the approval of the county.

CARML supports making county library service an upper-tier responsibility for all the municipalities that are part of the county or regional municipality, for existing county libraries and those that may be established in the future, and requests that references to non-participating municipalities be deleted.

As you heard in the presentation from Oxford, CARML raises the issue about the name as well. Obviously, we too feel it's an unnecessary expense.

Number 5 you've also heard from presenters about. The fact is that county libraries under the current act may have a majority of county councillors. In fact, I believe all county libraries do have a majority of county councillors, not citizens. We would suggest that there's no empirical evidence to support the contention that this board composition is less effective or defensive of intellectual freedom than boards constituted differently. Beyond ensuring that the resulting library board is representative of the community and that no member is employed by the board or by the county or regional municipality, CARML has no concerns with section 6.

Our sixth point is probably something you've heard a lot about as well: section 14. We understand that it's an attempt to compromise between access without charge to the library and its resources and the revenue needs of the library, especially given the elimination of the provincial operating grants to libraries. However -- and I hope other people are making this point -- CARML would prefer that such regulation for fees be made under the Public Libraries Act and not the Municipal Act. This would hopefully mean that library boards and staff who are directly responsible and must manage the library's financial and daily affairs and are the most knowledgeable about the library's operations are fully consulted about such regulations.

The regulations currently proposed are a case in point. They permit residents to borrow books and other print materials and residents with disabilities to borrow special-format materials without charge. Since county libraries are still primarily lenders of print material, such a change will generate a relatively insignificant amount of money, certainly only a fraction of the amount lost from the elimination of the provincial operating grants. In short, the minimal amount of revenue that would be generated through such charges by most county and regional municipality libraries would not be worth the administrative problems that would be created.

Furthermore, there's the whole issue of the format, which I'm sure you've heard about. You've heard that the Canadian Encyclopedia, for example, is only updated on CD-ROM. Our library system in Essex county operates 15 branches and we already have a wide-area network in place, and we use CD-ROMs that are centrally located in many of our branches. The technology today really is conducive to our kind of operation, so we don't feel it's appropriate to charge based on format. Obviously, that's the trend today, to increase technology, and we think it's shortsighted to just exclude the charge for lending books from this piece of legislation.

Number 7 is an issue that concerns county libraries in particular. We're very supportive and very pleased with the repeal of section 21 of the Public Libraries Act, which required county library boards to have the agreement of both the county council and the local municipality that operated a branch library before the county library was formed in order to close that branch library. Obviously, many county libraries have been in existence for 30 years or more and there have been demographic changes in that time. Not only have there been population changes, but the closure of the least effective and efficient branches might be possible through the repeal of this section. What often stands in the way of that now is the political interests of individual municipal councils. Hopefully, this would encourage the strengthening of the remaining branch libraries and consequently a stronger county library system overall.

Finally, CARML obviously regrets very much the end of the provincial operating grants to all libraries, providing, as it did, a minimal base for financial support across the province as well as a recognition of the additional costs of serving large geographic areas by county and regional municipality libraries and libraries in northern Ontario. We know their demise will mean disruption in some county libraries, especially in those areas with low property assessment.

At the same time, CARML advocates larger units of service, like county and regional municipality libraries, as the most effective, efficient and equitable way of providing library service. If, in the long run, the end of provincial operating grants for libraries does result in large units of service, CARML accepts the loss of these provincial operating grants.

Hopefully, you are aware of the Ontario public library statistics. I've appended a page that shows the fact that for the 17 county libraries, the population served is 1,034,000. Of course you have the situation where you have 300 libraries for the under 5,000 population and the 5,001 to 15,000 population, serving not very many more people. That's the difference between 300 libraries and 17 libraries, and that's the point we're trying to stress in our presentation under point 8.

1210

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. Just a logistics question: CARML is the CEOs of all these libraries?

Mr George: The 17 county libraries in the province plus the county cooperative in Simcoe.

Mr Martin: What role do you play in the coordination -- is this just a professional organization, or is it an organization that actually has a mandated role by the library systems to do certain things?

Mr George: It's a voluntary association. We, as the managers of the county libraries in Ontario, get together to discuss issues of mutual concern.

Mr Martin: I take it, then, that in presenting your thoughts today, they're your thoughts, not necessarily the thoughts of the individual library boards.

Mr George: No, it doesn't reflect the boards, necessarily.

Mr Martin: There are certainly some things in here that would fly in the face of what some of the folks are saying when they come forward, for example, the very strong and passionate plea for local control, for small communities to have control over their libraries, to have citizenship participation on the boards.

Mr George: We're speaking as administrators of the libraries.

Mr Martin: You're saying here that in the worst-case scenario, if we lose the money, it would make more sense that we operate as a regional. Perhaps you can tell me, would you get some resistance to that from some of your member organizations?

Mr George: Obviously, those libraries that are independent now would resist it. I think it's very much a personal, emotional reaction to that situation.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I want to clarify one thing I said this morning, when everybody was shaking their heads when I asked people if one-person boards had ever been set up before. I want people to know that a local municipality can now petition the government to get rid of a board, but very few have done it because they realize the importance of the citizenship participation. I wanted to clarify that.

Can I ask you what the makeup of your board is now?

Mr George: It's a seven-member board, with the warden of the county, three members of county council and three citizens.

Mr Stewart: Do you foresee that changing, getting away from citizenship participation, if this act were to go through?

Mr George: Speaking personally, I think it's unlikely.

Mr Stewart: Because of the good input that the citizens have. So there really should be no change in that whatsoever.

Mr George: I can give you a better example. In the county of Lambton, which had a private member's bill passed to make it a committee of council, they retained their citizen appointees on that board even though it's now a committee of council.

Mr Stewart: That's what I was referring to in terms of getting rid of a board now.

Mr Gravelle: Good morning. I want to clarify how the larger units of service would make up for the loss of provincial operating grants. How do you see that working?

Mr George: As you heard from my colleague Marg Rule, we also have been fortunate. The county council has made up the shortfalls. The reason we were able to implement the wide-area network was because we received $640,000 in infrastructure money, a third of which would have come from the county of Essex as their share of that.

Mr Gravelle: But there's no guarantee of that being --

Mr George: No, but there's no guarantee for any service, be it roads, be it social services.

Mr Gravelle: But is it realistic to have the entire provincial operating grants made up? That strikes me as somewhat unrealistic.

Mr George: I guess it's a question of how much the public values the service, and as you've heard, the public does attach a lot of importance to it. Certainly there's support for maintaining branches in our system, and I think the elected people will respond to that.

Mr Gravelle: But I presume you would argue that provincial operating grants should be maintained?

Mr George: In a perfect world we'd all like additional sources of revenue, but as our brief points out, if it's going to encourage larger units of service, we're prepared to live with the loss of those funds.

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

We'll be in recess until 1:30 this afternoon.

The committee recessed from 1216 to 1330.

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back for the afternoon session. Mr Gravelle has a point of order he wants to get to.

Mr Gravelle: Although I want to express my appreciation to the parliamentary assistant for his efforts to clarify some issues, I wanted to, if I could, put in writing the questions that we have, which I'll pass over to him. This reads as follows:

"Questions to the parliamentary assistant:

"(1) As many presenters before this standing committee have expressed confusion and uncertainty as to the rationale behind the exclusion of clause 28 in the draft legislation of Bill 109, would the Minister of Culture please clarify by indicating:

"(a) the legal ramifications of removing this clause in terms of confidentiality of information for libraries;

"(b) the legal framework that would serve to protect the confidentiality of libraries and library patrons;

"(c) whether the exclusion of clause 28 enables the selling of library membership lists for profit.

"Would the minister further endeavour to make this clarification in writing prior to the close of public hearings on Bill 109.

"(2) As many presenters before this standing committee have expressed confusion and uncertainty as to whether library boards operate as corporations as defined under the Corporations Act, would the Minister of Culture please offer a definitive legal opinion on this matter prior to the close of public hearings on Bill 109."

The Chair: We're not going to engage in debate on those. I know Mr Shea answered some of those verbally at one point; not all of them. So the desire now is to get a written brief back, written answers to those, as soon as possible.

Mr Gravelle: I'll be happy to pass this to Mr Shea.

The Chair: Sure. You can do it instead of getting the clerk moving around; you might as well just walk them around. Mr Shea, you can endeavour to look after those questions.

Mr Shea: Chairman, I would be very pleased to respond to his questions in a formal sense. I appreciate his acknowledgement that it has been done verbally already.

BILL ARMSTRONG
MARTHA JOYCE

The Chair: Mr Armstrong, I apologize for the delay. Welcome to the committee. You have 15 minutes to make your presentation. I would ask that you introduce your companion at the beginning of your presentation for the benefit of committee members.

Mr Bill Armstrong: Thank you very much. With me is city councillor Martha Joyce. She will be sharing the time with me today, making an independent presentation of her own. I'm Bill Armstrong. I'm a city councillor in the city of London. I've been on city council since 1994 and have sat on our CAPS committee for two years, which dealt with and oversaw the London library system.

I have four areas of concern which I will briefly allude to. Again, the areas of concern that I have are in changes in the governance to the public library system.

I believe this bill gives municipalities free rein to decide the size and makeup of the libraries, which will result in a loss of the independence and the arm's-length nature of library boards. Removing the requirements for a majority of citizens on library boards takes away from the guarantee of community input, reduces the role for volunteers and waters down the contributions of library advocates.

It would be my recommendation that the legislation should have minimum board sizes and the requirement that the majority of these representatives be community citizens. I further would recommend that any and all vacancies on boards should be advertised.

Regarding the issue of dissolution of boards, municipalities will have the power to dissolve library boards, a power that previously rested with the minister. There will no longer be the requirement of libraries to cease operations for two years before dissolving library boards. Combined with the power to determine library boards, this gives municipalities too much unilateral power to shut down and control library boards.

On the issue of free access, Bill 109 ends universal free access to library circulation collections and ignores the realities of our information age. By limiting free access to print material only, and with pressures to cut costs, libraries will be forced to impose user fees on non-print material. Fees are a barrier to services, and experience shows that these types of fees don't generate significant revenue; they just discourage people from accessing services.

Free, universal access to libraries should be a fundamental principle of the library system in Ontario. With Bill 109, free access continues to be guaranteed, but only for print materials and in-house use of collections, not for the entire circulating collection as in existing legislation. Therefore I do not support any changes in legislation that would allow for user fees.

On the issue of confidentiality, with the repeal of section 28 of the 1984 act, inspection of records is a matter of concern to the public library community. Protecting individual library records from disclosure is not covered in other provincial freedom of information legislation. The confidentiality of library borrowing records is an important ethical issue to library boards, librarians and library clients. I am dismayed to see that this provision is lost in the new wording of the act. I am concerned that section 28 of the Public Libraries Act, 1984, be retained in Bill 109.

Mrs Martha Joyce: Good afternoon. I am Martha Joyce. I'm a city councillor representing ward 7 for the city of London and I'm also one of the council representatives on the library board. I asked to come today to share time with Councillor Armstrong because I wanted to indicate to you that I personally had a great deal of difficulty struggling through answering the governance question: How should the membership of the library board be constituted? As you heard earlier today, city council adopted one position and the library board adopted another position.

As I worked through the arguments with respect to how the membership should be constituted, I came to the conclusion that it's imperative that we write into the legislation that the greatest numbers on the library board should be comprised of private or volunteer citizens, because for the most part the people who are appointed by councils to library boards are individuals who have a strong interest in libraries. They're interested in the educative role of libraries, from the preprint age right through to seniors. Seniors, as you know, are also significant users of our library. I simply wanted to make the point that I have come to the conclusion that if we want strong advocacy for libraries, it's going to be achieved by mandating that the majority of the membership be private citizens.

The constituents elect us to represent them, but in terms of our positions with respect to the value of libraries in our community, that is not always one of the priorities in an election campaign: Where do you sit in terms of how you value libraries? In the political order of things, libraries may get lost in the political agenda, both by the public and by those who are represented. As you are aware, a lot of responsibilities are proposed to be devolved to local municipal councils, and I'm concerned that libraries are going to get lost in the shuffle in terms of priorities.

A few months ago, the library board asked our council to recognize libraries as an essential service, as a service that's equivalent in terms of stature to police services and fire services. That motion did not carry at our council, even though our mandate and our motto says that the work of the London Public Library is an essential service.

The second point I wanted to address today was the aspect of user fees. I do not support user fees in the sense that the legislation is suggesting they be exempted in terms of borrowing print materials. I am a qualified teacher, and as you know, there are different styles of learning. For some individuals, A-V materials are as important to them in terms of learning as are print materials. So I think charging user fees for the loan of audio-visual materials would have an impact for some students, probably some seniors as well. It would negate their opportunity to access information in a way that is appropriate to them; also the idea that music -- CDs and cassettes -- is very important to individuals in terms of a broader cultural education. So I don't appreciate that there's a distinction between print materials and audio-visual materials in terms of borrowing capacity.

Those are the two points I wanted to bring to the committee hearing today.

1340

Mr Shea: Thank you for your presentation. May I ask you, first of all: I assume this is your personal view and not the view of the council of London.

Mrs Joyce: Very clearly this is my personal view and not the view of council nor the library board.

Mr Shea: Would you just clarify again how you differ in your personal view from the view of the council of the city of London.

Mrs Joyce: The council of the city of London is advocating that the matter of the composition of the library board be left to the discretion of each and every municipality. London council is also supporting the recommendation with respect to user fees as it has been proposed in the legislation.

Mr Shea: You take me a little by surprise when you indicate that as a councillor you likely would not have enough time to give attention to matters such as libraries and so forth; you may be otherwise engaged in events. Is that a view that you would have of all members of council?

Mrs Joyce: I didn't apply that to myself personally in the sense of taking an interest in libraries. I have. I'm a council representative on the library board. I don't believe councillors can concentrate in a lot of areas. There are a lot of responsibilities at council. For example, as you are aware, we're responsible for long-term care. I'm a member of the Dearness committee of management, and in that capacity I've carried a long-term interest in the care of our seniors. So I think councillors rather divvy up their areas of expertise and interest, and oftentimes those are areas of expertise and interest that you develop over time as councillors but that aren't in the political forefront during an election campaign.

If there were an issue of a library closure, I think that most of my constituents would want my position on libraries, but I can't recall the last time I was asked a question with respect to libraries in a political campaign.

Mr Gravelle: I think it's very significant and it's certainly important that we have two members of council here who are very clear in the fact that they feel strongly about the need to basically support and advocate for the libraries in the manner that you have. What may be important about it is, and I think implicit in what you're saying is, that you believe the majority of citizen representation can be maintained and the whole question of core services should be changed, recognizing it from your position as councillors. As well, you have great responsibilities in terms of the costs and the downloading and some of the realities of restructuring.

Although you're not speaking officially on behalf of council, could you tell us or talk a little bit about the fact that you believe this can work and will work better without impinging on dealing with some of the fiscal realities that we're all going to have to face?

Mrs Joyce: I'm not clear on what you're suggesting may work better: the proposal that I bring today or council's original proposal?

Mr Gravelle: Your proposal. I'm very much in support of a citizen majority, and what I'm pleased about is that, yes, as councillors you're coming forward and saying it can work. The tone or attitude we've had from other sorts of councils in London this morning is that you'd be better off not to have the citizen majority boards, or in some cases boards at all. You're saying it can work and you're saying, as councillors, it can work and it should work that way.

What I think would be useful to hear is, as city councillors who have to deal with the fiscal realities, you're saying that the majority citizenship representation can work, and obviously you're saying it won't be a hindrance to some of the decisions that have to be made. So I'm very supportive and delighted that you're feeling that way as well.

Mrs Joyce: The one thing with respect to the library board having jurisdiction over their budget is restricted in the sense that council always goes through line-by-line approval of the library board budget. If there are disagreements, the library board is aware of the fact that they are appointed by council, that they have to be on side with respect to what our budget targets are, and they've always been very cooperative locally in terms of the budget constraints and our financial targets.

As well, an independent library board with strong advocates has been very successful in raising private funds to support libraries. We opened a new library, the Masonville Public Library, and the private funding and contribution to the opening of that library far surpassed the expectations. More funds could have been raised if we had had even a more aggressive campaign. We closed it off at the $42,000 level, but it could have been far more significant.

So it can and does work locally, and I speak to my experience as a member of what we call the community and protective services committee. We also function as the Dearness committee of management. We take our hats off at one point in the meeting, and we're now the Dearness committee of management. We would probably do that same sort of approach as a standing committee of council with respect to libraries. At one point a standing committee of council would be "the public library board."

But I also have had experience being a member of the community advisory committee for our long-term care home, the Dearness Home, and the tremendous amount of work that goes into this operation by this small committee is equivalent to the kind of work that a library board does. You get into your subcommittee groups, you go into the feasibility studies of new libraries, of mergers of libraries. The dedication of time is incredible.

A standing committee of your council and municipality is not going to be able to provide that kind of dedication that a public library with dedicated community, private citizens, can and want to provide --

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but I've got to go to Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: You both raise two of the three major concerns that we've heard over the last day and a half from most people who came before us: the issues of governance and of user fees and then also the issue of provincial participation financially in the delivery of services, particularly on a province-wide basis.

It seems to me the governance question needs to be looked at in the context of what we expect a board to do. Is the board expected to deliver on the fiscal agenda of the provincial or the municipal government, or is it expected to work together to make sure that we present to the community the best that's possible in library services within the restrictions that are always there, have always been re how much money you have?

I'd like to ask either one of you which model you're coming from, and also the section 28 question. Why do you think that has been dropped? You just don't drop a whole section -- it didn't make the computer or something. There's usually a reason behind that. Certainly there's some controversy right now out there around the question of censorship. Could it have anything to do with that? There are two questions there.

Mrs Joyce: With respect to the fiscal agenda, I believe that agenda has been satisfied with the present composition of library boards, the present way of appointing library boards with a representation from the broader community in terms of school boards. I don't see it as a conflict in terms of fiscal agendas not being in sync. We've been able to work cooperatively locally. We haven't had great difficulty there.

I don't know if that's an experience in other municipalities, and certainly I guess the issue of censorship could become a political football. We wouldn't want censorship to become a political football. I think that should rest with the library board that is duly appointed.

Mr Martin: Is there --

The Chair: Mr Martin, I really haven't got enough time to allow you to go into any further questioning. I apologize but I want to thank you both for coming forward to make your presentation to the committee today.

1350

WOODSTOCK PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would the representative from the Woodstock Public Library board please come forward. Welcome to the committee.

Ms Patricia Moody: I'm Patricia Moody. I'm chairman of the Woodstock Public Library board. This is Stephen Nelson, chief librarian of the Woodstock Public Library.

In her statement to the Ontario Legislature when introducing Bill 109, the Honourable Marilyn Mushinski stated that Ontario libraries had served the province very well for over 100 years. Yet Bill 109 and the accompanying regulations remove this basic protection that has built and supported this great network of libraries and their excellent standards of service.

We are greatly concerned with three areas of the bill: board composition, funding and access to library resources. We respectfully request that this committee strongly encourage the government to reconsider these proposals.

The present citizen-majority boards have proved that the library system works; it works very well. Board membership is not an honorary post or a political reward; it is a job, albeit a volunteer job, that carries with it responsibility and responsiveness to both the community and the internal factors that drive one of the most used and respected of all municipal services. Board members give freely of their time. Most are there because they want to be. They believe wholeheartedly, often passionately, in the value and the importance of the library to the community.

City council members on the board, although their interest and concern are no less supportive, have the poorest attendance on board affairs. They just do not have the time for the same commitment. Woodstock Public Library makes its presentation today supported by its municipal council. Our council passed a motion on March 6 supporting free access to libraries and continued board governance. Our mayor has gone public in the paper saying that the system works very well as it is and they will continue it. However, our concern is the position of future councils. Therefore, we support the inclusion into section 5 of Bill 109 that boards should maintain a citizen majority who are not members of council or municipal staff.

The changes in library funding are also a major concern. The Public Libraries Act, 1984, could have been called the Local Control of Public Libraries Act. Although it wasn't quickly apparent, the 1984 act really gave control to municipalities by providing line-by-line budget approval, and I'm sure there are many board members in this room who can relate to the harrowing experience of budget presentations in the last few years. Local control is already in place.

The phasing out of provincial funding will in essence remove the pressure to maintain the standards of excellence libraries are justly proud of. There is no provision in Bill 109 for municipalities to make up this funding. It has been suggested that the government allocate a portion of the municipal education taxes to libraries, and we strongly support this recommendation.

Free access and use of library services to local citizens has been the cornerstone of Ontario libraries. It is probably the most contentious issue libraries face today, as technology continues to expand and fuel society's demand for information.

Protection of access to library information should be legislated, not regulated. Replacing section 23 of the present act into Bill 109 would be consistent with the claim that Bill 109 will "safeguard our library system."

Mr Stephen Nelson: I am here today to express my support and the support of the Woodstock Public Library Board for the positions adopted by the Association of Medium-Sized Public Libraries of Ontario, who you heard earlier today making a presentation, the Ontario Library Association and, as Patricia Moody mentioned, the position of the council of the corporation of the city of Woodstock. More specifically, I would like to address two issues: the provincial interest in the public library system and user fees for public library services.

On the first issue, the minister was eloquent in her address this year to the annual convention of the Ontario Library Association on the importance of the public library system. The province, she noted, recognized, "the great value of libraries to the economic health of the province through their role in creating a well-educated and literate workforce." The provincial interest in education has been expressed by the government in other legislative initiatives as well, but the provincial interest in public libraries as a part of this educational system as a whole is equally important.

The province has already invested millions of dollars over many years in the public library system. This investment should not be abandoned. The minister has encouraged active cooperation between school and public libraries in order to deliver library services cost-effectively. This principle should be encouraged.

The minister has also shown support for continued provincial involvement in maintaining the practice of sharing resources between libraries through interlibrary loans of books, but the province is the only stakeholder in the library system that transcends the boundaries between institutions. It contributes funding to school, university and public libraries, and only the province can provide the incentives necessary to sustain resource sharing between all publicly funded libraries.

The province has also taken steps to take advantage of technological innovation and of the public library infrastructure in order to disseminate vital government information cost-effectively to its citizens. This gateway should be kept open.

For all of these reasons, the provincial interest in the public library system remains. But that interest will be left undefended if all provincial funding for public libraries is withdrawn and all control is dissipated among individual municipalities. The public library system has grown as a partnership between the province and its municipalities, and it can only continue to thrive in this spirit of partnership. But to be effective, both members of this partnership, like any partnership, must continue to contribute resources towards the achievement of mutually beneficial goals.

On the other issue of user fees, access to educational resources is necessary in order to allow all citizens an opportunity to participate in the economy. A literate workforce is a precious resource in a globally competitive economy; a boost to rather than a drag on productivity. The province has recognized the importance of literacy by defending free borrowing of print material in the legislation proposed. The province has also shown an interest in fostering technological innovation in the delivery of information through its support of projects like Network 2000 and the provincial Web site, which provides access to government legislation and regulations.

Today information is delivered in many forms including print, magnetic and electronic media. It is the content, however, that is most important, not the format. It is impossible to judge the relative importance of information based on the format in which it is made accessible. People learn from information; it makes no difference whether it is on paper, videotape, audio tape or over the Internet. Access to these tools for self-education, like access to schools, should be supported by everyone because everyone benefits from an educated workforce and citizenry.

Andrew Carnegie, the famous industrialist who rose from rags to riches, used his fortune to endow public libraries, including the Woodstock Public Library, because as a child he had been refused access to his local library; he couldn't afford to pay the fee. Please recognize, as Andrew Carnegie did, the importance of free public library service by enshrining it in the new act.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you both very much for your presentation and for leaving a little bit of time. Certainly it's nice to hear that the Woodstock council is very much supporting you in what you're doing today, and I think it's an important point to make.

Obviously what you say about the Public Libraries Act, 1984, is interesting in terms of local control, because the fact is that in terms of line-by-line budget approval, that has been in place, and the fact is that citizen majorities have also been in place on a number of the boards, and obviously it has worked. If one takes what the minister has said in terms of trying to maintain access and safeguarding the library system, one has to wonder what would hold her back from actually putting that in this legislation as well. I support you in terms of doing that and wonder whether you have anything to add to what reason there would be to not have citizen majorities on the councils when it has worked.

Ms Moody: I think probably libraries might have helped a little bit themselves. We hid behind that act when we would go for our budget presentations and say, "The act doesn't allow us to do that," and I think this is where the pressure came to change the act originally. Unfortunately, once that idea got going, I don't think they realized that they were going to be given all this other stuff by the provincial government, the mega-week announcements and everything. I think now, quite frankly, it wouldn't bother too many councils if they didn't get control of the libraries. It's just a very small item, usually between 2% and 5% on their budget. I think they'd be quite happy to leave the libraries where they are and how they are.

Mr Gravelle: Just to move to one other point too, because we haven't had a chance to talk about it earlier today too much, the whole question of networking and the informal sort of contacts between libraries across the province. Obviously, if some of the things go through this act, there are going to be remarkable disparities in terms of various library boards across the board.

The networks, formal and informal, that have been set up are incredibly important, are they not, to the system. Do you see them being damaged? You make some reference to the fact that only the province can maintain or help to make sure this happens. How important are these networks, and what do they mean? What difference do they make in terms of the system and how it works for everybody in the province?

Mr Nelson: They're extremely important because they allow people in local communities to get access to resources that are sometimes only available in larger communities, and they also allow very expensive resources to be shared across the province.

The problem is, if there's no more provincial funding for public libraries, then individual public libraries, based on their own fiscal constraints, will likely withdraw from the interlibrary loan network. The province has indicated it wants to continue to support that network, but there's no point in supporting the network infrastructure if you're not going to have any more members in the network, and the only way to keep members in the network is to give them a financial incentive for doing so.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Gravelle, and thank you both for coming forward and making your presentation today.

1400

ONTARIO COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Could Susan Moskal, Lee Walker Evans and Suzanne O'Neill please come forward. Good afternoon, and welcome to the committee.

Ms Susan Moskal: Thank you. My name is Susan Moskal and I'm the president of the Ontario College and University Library Association. To my right is Claire Callaghan, who is the treasurer of the Ontario College and University Library Association, and to my left is Suzanne O'Neill, who is a former president of OCULA. Claire works at the University of Western Ontario, I'm at the University of Waterloo and Suzanne is at Fanshawe College.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to address this committee concerning Bill 109. I speak to you today not only as the president of the Ontario College and University Library Association but also as a member of the community at large.

This bill, as it stands, will have direct and negative consequences for the academic library community. Strong, vibrant and healthy public libraries are important to colleges and universities. Students and faculty engaging in some areas of study depend on their public library. Local history collections, newspaper files, publications reflecting popular culture and, I should add, collections which are not also available in academic libraries are just some examples of the scholarly community turning to local public libraries for resources.

Furthermore, many members of the academic community are frequent and dedicated supporters and users of public libraries. I should add here that some of your presenters this morning from the community and area that I represent were also members of the university community in Waterloo, although they did not identify themselves as such. The public library is an essential component of the web of information sources.

It may be assumed by local municipal councils that in communities where academic libraries exist, in other words, communities that are home to colleges and universities, they would fill the needs of the public. Well, this is simply not the case. As financial support for public libraries slips away, pressure will be brought to bear on other libraries in the community to pick up the slack. The Ontario College and University Library Association feels quite strongly that academic libraries cannot meet the information needs of the patrons formerly met by the public library.

Firstly, the mandate of college and university libraries is to meet the needs of their primary clientele: the students, faculty and researchers. Many simply do not have the collections or staff resources to expand service to the general public.

Academic library collections are purchased for scholarly research and are not typically at a level that is of interest or usefulness to the general public. The recreational aspects of public libraries are outside the purview of academic studies.

In an effort to deal with reduced budgets, many academic libraries have been forced to introduce borrowing charges for members of the general public. Access may be free, they can walk through the doors, but borrowing is often not.

OCULA recognizes the important, significant and vital role that public libraries play in the continuing education and lifelong learning of the residents of Ontario in small and large communities across this province. When public libraries suffer, we all suffer.

A strong public library system that supports all the citizens of Ontario, that ensures them access to the information resources they need, when and where they need them, is essential to the health of this province. Whereas school, college and university libraries are mandated to meet the specific needs of students and faculty at particular times in their lives, public libraries are there from the cradle to the grave to support the public interest.

OCULA is very concerned about the downloading of responsibilities for public libraries to the municipalities. Bill 109, as it stands, will create information-rich and information-poor populations. Some communities may be more willing or more able than others to commit resources to libraries. When municipal councillors have to choose between repairing potholes or maintaining the journal collection, the library will undoubtedly suffer.

Governance of public libraries is of vital importance. Maintaining a significant level of direct participation by citizens is absolutely essential to the integrity of public libraries. Municipal officials generally will not have the expertise or the interest in public libraries to effectively govern their direction.

Removing electronic products from the list of core services is also of great concern. As academic librarians, we are painfully aware of the increasing number of publications being produced only in electronic formats. The government of Ontario is itself leading the way in this trend, and I'd like to add here that the depository services program, which is the program the government uses to disseminate its publications and information to the public, has been dropping significantly the number of publications that they distribute and that are made available in paper. I am a government documents librarian and I am very well aware of this. We get less and less. More and more is available only on the Internet. Charging for non-print materials will effectively take vital information out of the hands of citizens. This proposal is shortsighted and regressive.

Simply put, information is power. Any plan that unreasonably limits the ability of citizens to access information freely and equally threatens the social and economic health of the province.

Our recommendations: that free access to core information include all reference and information services and non-print materials, including electronic resources; that citizens comprise the majority of members on public library boards; that all board meetings be open to the public; that the provincial government expand its role in establishing standards for library services and access across Ontario.

In conclusion, the Ontario College and University Library Association supports the existence of strong public libraries in all communities across this province. As more and more social services are being downloaded from the province to the municipalities, it is even more important that the main and often only local resource for information, the public library, be maintained and supported independently of local government. In order to maintain standards and foster the development of strong libraries working together in a province-wide system, it is important that the provincial government remain accountable for the success of information distribution and delivery of library services.

1410

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much. I think what you have presented is very important for a couple of points. One, I think it's important to hear the Ontario College and University Library Association basically say, "We shouldn't be expected, nor shall we be set up, to be the ones who are going to replace them." So that's being said publicly. You're stating that very strongly.

As a government documents librarian, I think your point about the core services is fascinating. It does seem somewhat hypocritical, if not farcical, that the government and this ministry is talking about free access to print material when nobody knows better than they do that almost all the format has come in electronically from themselves. It's almost like saying, "We think you should have free access to print material, but maybe not free access to our material." That may seem harsh, but that's in essence what is ultimately being set up. So I think your points about that are really key.

In terms of the free access, how far do you think it should go? You talk about reference material. Would you agree to user fees of any sort at all in terms of what is accessible, or do you feel it should just all be free material?

Ms Moskal: I think there are probably areas for very specialized services for which perhaps public libraries could charge. This is more or less my own opinion, but I think, for example, something like perhaps interlibrary loan. But certainly for access to holdings that they have in their library and access to electronic information, to the Internet basically, I don't think myself that there should be charges for this, particularly since much of the very critical information is available only on the Internet. Local businesses can get same-day information and weekly financial statistics from the Bank of Canada about how Canada's finances are doing and this kind of thing.

Mr Gravelle: That's just going to keep growing, isn't it?

Ms Moskal: There is critical information out there from federal governments and from provincial governments that aid not only people in school but your general population, your local businesses. Where are they going to go when they need information? Will they be willing to pay for it?

The other thing that is missing from this whole scenario is that it is great to provide the infrastructure, but you can't stop there. Computers cost money. Training people to access it, finding your way through those resources is difficult. Designing the content so that people can find their way through what is a massive amount of information takes skilled people with knowledge, and that doesn't happen cheaply or freely, typically.

Mr Martin: You raise again some of the key points that are consistently raised before us here these couple of days: free access, majority citizen members on boards, open meetings and provincial government involvement in delivery of library services.

I'm told by people who know that in Ontario today we're world leaders in library systems, in the information-gathering and dissemination that we do. I suggest to you it's because we have a very sophisticated and interconnected system of libraries in colleges and universities, communities and schools. If putting them together made a lot of a sense, for a myriad of reasons, we would have done it before now. But you point out here some of the reasons why it doesn't make sense to now move what is today in the public library system over on to the shoulders of the colleges and universities, just as --

Ms Moskal: We couldn't do it. We aren't funded to do that and our funding has been cut. Our mandate is not to collect things for the general public, to meet their needs.

Mr Martin: Just as others who came before us told us it wasn't appropriate that we put public libraries in schools because of all of the logistical safety questions. They don't have the kind of resources in schools that you need in a public library, and again the cost factor and everything else. Where would you suggest we go with all of that?

Ms Moskal: I'm not sure what your question is about where we should go with all of that. If we're pulling schools into the scenario -- three very different communities of users. As any business or other area of government, we look after basically our own clientele, for the most part, and we provide services for them.

When the support for public libraries diminishes significantly, as it has over the past few years and will continue to do, the question is, where are the citizens of Ontario going to be able to go to get the services and information they need when public libraries even now are struggling to meet the needs of the general public?

Mrs Munro: I'd first of all like to suggest that in this legislation there is certainly no intention for the kind of shift you've suggested in terms of the colleges and universities not being able to pick up. I don't see that in the intent of the legislation. I would like to comment particularly about the recommendations you've made, as obviously, from your own professional background, you come to this discussion with that kind of expertise.

In point 4 you talk about the establishment of standards. I would like to ask if you also see a role in municipalities, in communities. Is there a level of accountability there as well?

Ms Moskal: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at.

Mrs Munro: This legislation is going to provide opportunity. Obviously, there has been the line-by-line budget control kind of situation, but the municipalities have argued for some time the need to have "pay and say" being the same group of people, so they have carried 90% in many cases, although this varies across the province, of the budget responsibility of libraries. My question then comes in this issue you've identified in number 4 as an issue of accountability. Do you see an accountability component in municipal government as well?

Ms Moskal: First of all, I'd like to say that there's the pay and there's the say and there's the do. The people who might be paying and saying are not necessarily the ones behind the information desk or making decisions for purchasing. So there are three levels there.

In terms of accountability, municipal councils would certainly be accountable for providing the local public library with enough funding to meet the level of standard the provincial government sets out in the act. In other words, we set standards for schools and we're doing a great deal right now to ensure that children across the province are educated up to a certain level of competence. It's been very important to everybody that this be province-wide.

Why should information resources and information services for the general population not be just as significant, that there be minimal standards set by the province that the citizens of this province must be able to go to a public library to at least find out certain levels of information? If you say, as it seems to in the act, that basically libraries can be done away with entirely, you're saying we will educate all the province up to a certain level, but once they get out of this system they had better decide where they're going to live if they want to have some standard of information set.

That's the way I'm perceiving it, that you're saying: "Up to here, this is what everybody will learn. They will graduate from grade 12 or 13 or whatever and be able to do thus and so." But after that, when they want to find out information, when they want to reach certain objectives, it's going to be a whole variety of levels of information available out there, and sometimes they will have to pay and sometimes they won't have to pay; sometimes they might have to go 100 miles to find what they need and sometimes it will be next door.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but we've gone beyond the allotted time. I want to thank you all for coming in today and making your presentation to the committee.

URBAN LEAGUE OF LONDON

The Chair: Would the representatives from the Urban League of London please come forward. Welcome to the committee.

Mrs Susan Russell: Good afternoon. My name is Sue Russell. I'm here today representing the Urban League of London. With me are two members of the urban league working group on libraries, Lee Walker Evans and Keith Oliver.

The Urban League is an umbrella organization for community groups in London. We are comprised mainly of neighbourhood and resident associations, but our membership also includes city-wide groups. One of the objectives of the Urban League is to enhance the quality of life in London by encouraging citizen participation in community and civic affairs. Many of our member groups have branch libraries within their boundaries, and over the years, library issues have been addressed by these groups. Strong support has been demonstrated for branch libraries and the library system as a whole.

1420

We are pleased with Minister Marilyn Mushinski's statement, documented in the Hansard dated Wednesday, February 26, 1997, that "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 we enjoy." We couldn't agree more. With that statement in mind, we would like to focus today on three important issues.

To begin with user fees, in our view the only justification for fees is to discourage abuse or misuse of the system. Under the proposed legislation, fees may be imposed for borrowing non-print materials. As has been noted by others, more and more information will be available only in electronic format.

I would like to quote the Southern Ontario Library Service in a submission to Minister Mushinski dated January 23, 1997. The submission stated that one of the "implications of charging for information in other formats would be that only those who can afford to pay will have access to information in digital formats. As these formats become more prevalent, eventually replacing print formats in some areas, those who cannot afford to pay will fall further and further behind." This is simply unfair and unacceptable, in our minds. If "free access to information is the cornerstone of our proud library tradition," as stated by Minister Mushinski, that access must apply to non-print material also.

As also stated by the Southern Ontario Library Service in the same submission, "Library collections include resources that are off-site, such as remote databases." It is not just what is in the library; it is what the library gives you access to. This should be available to all. Any practice that restricts the full use of library materials, regardless of format, is unacceptable.

Under the issue of governance, to our knowledge, present standards for the composition of library boards and their mandate have served the people of Ontario well. We question the need for change. We wish to note that the urban league and its member groups have had their differences with the London Public Library board. However, we are convinced that a library board with a majority of citizen members is the best system and should be uniform across the province.

Library boards composed of a majority of citizen members have the ability to deal with difficult issues, such as those affecting intellectual freedom, and to do so without direct political interference. Library boards composed of a majority of citizen members encourage the participation of citizens to serve as volunteer board members and allow them to play a significant role in decision making. Library boards composed of a majority of citizen members encourage individuals in the community to approach and interact with a group of their peers in developing library policy.

On the issue of funding, we are against any legislation which will result in the need to pursue fund-raising at the local level to support basic library services. Making local government fully responsible for library funding will result in unequal access to information from one community to the next. For this reason, we believe that the provincial government should maintain its role in correcting the inequities that exist and that the provincial government should continue to be a partner with local government in the funding of libraries. We recommend that the provincial government continue to provide library grants in such a way as to provide equal access to library services for all Ontarians.

Mr David Crombie and Mr Peter Meyboom, chairs of the Who Does What panel and the municipal administration subpanel, stated in a submission to the Honourable Al Leach that the subpanel "wishes to preserve Ontario's public library system, which is acknowledged as being among the best in the world." It sounds as though that old adage should apply, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

It was recently stated that "A library is an outwardly visible sign of social equality." We hope committee members will support this concept through their deliberations. Thank you for this opportunity.

Mr Martin: It's good that you, a group representing such a wide spectrum of interest, should come today and share your concerns with us. I need to tell you right off the bat that your concerns are consistent with others' concerns, for the most part, although you bring an interesting perspective.

I think it's important that all of us understand that this isn't a standalone initiative of this government, that this little piece fits into a larger picture which has seen the provincial government move more and more out of the direct delivery of services that people in communities like London have grown to expect will be there for them re their quality of life, their ability to participate in the civic life of their community. This may have been easier to handle by municipal government, the download of the full cost of libraries and library boards might not be causing the same pressure, if this wasn't being done in that bigger download context.

In London, do people use the libraries as a gathering place and for other reasons besides taking out books and resources of that sort? Are they community centres?

Mrs Russell: Absolutely.

Mr Martin: Do you see an impact on that by way of what's happening re this legislation?

Mrs Russell: I could foresee a potential impact, yes.

Mr Martin: In what way?

Ms Lee Walker Evans: I would say a very great impact in London for that sort of thing, because when there is not as much money, what suffers is smaller neighbourhood branches, obviously, and that has been the case in London through other financial difficulties. Lots of times the library branch in a neighbourhood, be it small or large, is a really important part of that neighbourhood, in that people go there, people meet their neighbours there, people gather there, as you say. Particularly in an older neighbourhood of the city, where there is not a great deal of growth but there's a very stable population, that happens even more. Not only use of library materials but use of library space as gathering and meeting places is an essential part of a library.

Mr Young: I want to give a quick synopsis of what the Who Does What exercise is about because we've heard a number of comments yesterday and today about downloading or reducing funding for libraries. The exercise was to take -- there was a consensus, and has been for years -- the cost of education off the property tax. It was inequitable, it was rising too fast etc. We've done that. The Who Does What exercise is to make an equilibrium, that is, a revenue-neutral change, to get other services back to the municipality and give them the flexibility to manage. It's not about downloading.

But if we're talking about government spending -- and Mr Martin has been critical a number of times of the government. When we came into government the debt was at $100 billion. That means that every person in this room owes $10,000; we're all responsible for paying that money back, and it'll grow by another $800 per person this year.

In every effort we make, the twin efforts are to bring more jobs and economic growth back to the province, and the other is to downsize to get back to what we really need in the way of services and balance our books. We need to give municipalities the flexibility to make this happen. I wanted to point that out.

Many groups have recognized the need for change; some haven't. Some have said: "I know you have to change. I know you have to reduce government spending, but don't ask us to change because we can't change. We need more money." There have been people who presented to us yesterday and today who do recognize the need for change. They haven't said it, but they do, and it's very important to note.

I wish I had a chance to ask the ladies who presented before about the user fees that exist at university libraries now, because there are user fees; you have to pay to use the library and I'm sure they have fines etc. They said it's a threat to freedom.

I'd like to ask you what the basis is for the statement you made that "those who cannot afford to pay will fall further and further behind." How do you identify who comes into a library who can't afford to pay now? Is there any information on that basis?

1430

Ms Walker Evans: I personally have argued user fee issues with the London board and city council several times. My position is, and it certainly doesn't change, that we can't identify the people who don't use the services, because when you have fees, there is always a little stipulation there saying, "If you can't afford to pay, we will make special arrangements," but --

Mr Young: Exactly. They use discretion, and they do in my library now.

Ms Walker Evans: Could I finish?

Mr Young: If you have a fine --

The Chair: Mr Young, I'm going to have to cut you off, because your time is up, no other reason than that.

Mr Gravelle: I'm sure that the urban league members don't need a government spin lecture from Mr Young on the downloading realities or why they're going about doing this. Indeed it has become clear to everybody involved that there is a $1-billion gap minimally, which is even recognized by the association of municipalities.

I know this gentleman looked like he was very keen to say something and I want to give him an opportunity to do that, but the urban league, I presume, is involved in other issues besides this issue. You have concerns about a number of issues that relate to the government obviously, as a neighbourhood and resident committee group, so I want to give you an opportunity to talk about some of those impacts which obviously the libraries are part of, because it is part of a much larger process. I saw you chomping at the bit there to respond to something, so please feel free. But clearly you're involved in other issues as well and the libraries are simply one part you're trying today to defend and to fight for.

Mr Keith Oliver: Very much. We've been involved in planning issues, as a new official plan was just approved last year here in the city. It's terribly frustrating to hear political and economic ideology when we should be talking about real situations.

We'd love to have an opportunity, and we're not going to have it, to try to tell you some of the proposals that we've made to the London Public Library, to do with combining with other services that governments, including the federal government, own, developing community resource centres, getting real efficiencies, being able to deliver a wider variety of important learning, job training services to the community through specific points of focus distributed well throughout the city. But we're not going to have an opportunity for that because we get into all this gobbledegook about debt and we forget about our problems and how to solve them. I'm sorry, but this really gets me upset.

Mr Gravelle: If you could write your ideas down for us, the committee would be very pleased to receive that and I'll be sure to get back to you on that.

Mr Oliver: We'll make a point of doing that. We have had conversations with the library board. As Mrs Russell has said, we don't always have an easy time with the London library board, and that's part of the game. We have some new ideas that need to be tested and so on.

We're very concerned about access. It should be equal across the province. We stand a chance of turning our province into a whole series of have and have-not communities, and that's something that upsets me very much and is of concern to all our members. We are 33 community organizations here in London --

The Chair: Thank you, all of you, for coming forward today and taking the time to make a presentation. We appreciate it.

KENT COUNTY LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Helene Thompson please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. I'd appreciate it if you could introduce yourselves at the beginning for the benefit of committee members.

Ms Helene Thompson: My name is Helene Thompson, and with me is the director of the Kent County Library, Margaret Scott. I am the chair of the Kent County Library board. Thank you for the opportunity to express the views of the Kent County Library board regarding Bill 109. Kent county, as some of you may know, is in a rather odd position, so some of my statements may seem a little different.

There seems to be a dichotomy when the Ontario Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation says that Ontario libraries are one of Ontario's greatest cultural and economic assets, but we are told that municipalities can close down libraries.

Ontario is also the only province to withdraw funding support from libraries. The provincial government says that library services to all citizens must be maintained at the present level, but how can it be maintained if funding is cut? There is a domino effect as fewer funds lead to fewer services, fewer hours and fewer patrons in the library and therefore fewer libraries.

In 1969, sufficient interest in Kent county was garnered to consider the development of a county library system. Due to persuasive arguments by professional library staff, local politicians realized that centralized book selection, ordering and processing, interlibrary loan and other important functions would allow municipalities to maximize the limited available funds for library service. Cooperation and centralization would ensure that economies of scale could be realized as well as the establishment of free and equitable library service for all Kent county residents.

Over the past 28 years, this collaborative approach has seen the development of standardized procedures for the operation of branch libraries and staffing of the same as well as facility improvements in all 11 locations currently under the jurisdiction of the Kent County Library board. The result has been a free, accountable and efficient library service that is accessible to all those living within the boundaries of the county of Kent.

For many years the government of Ontario has supported the operation of public libraries across the province by awarding operating grants based on population and, more recently, the total number of municipal households. By virtue of their organizational structure, county library boards have enjoyed a supplementary grant to assist in maintaining a multisite library system.

The Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation announced in 1995 that operating grants would be reduced by 20% in 1996 and a further 20% in 1997. The net result for the Kent County Library board has been the loss of $96,000 over the two-year period. We expect that the per household grant will be eliminated completely in 1998.

The transfer of responsibility for public library service from the provincial or county level to the municipal level effective January 1998 could have a detrimental effect on the free and equitable library service that all Ontarians have enjoyed for many years. It is quite likely that local municipalities will lack the necessary funds and the political will to maintain libraries and therefore many will experience a deterioration of service standards and ultimately close their doors. It is for this reason and the obvious economies of scale and elimination of the duplication of some services inherent when branch libraries are managed independently that the Kent County Library board favours a centralized system.

The Kent County Library provides over 15 services and benefits to all county of Kent residents. This rural public library service is delivered for the low cost of $15.01 per capita and $36.16 per household annually -- from the 1996 budget. These costs are lower than those paid by residents in both Chatham and neighbouring counties. The ability to maintain low operating costs is only possible through the development and support of a centralized library system.

The current library board structure provides geographic and political representation. Annual political appointments to the Kent County Library board ensure equal representation from all areas of the county over the three-year term of council. The entire Kent community is well represented by the three citizen appointees who also serve a three-year term. The library board reports regularly to Kent county council and is financially accountable to the same body. The same tax dollar is applied equitably across the entire region. Library policies and procedures are developed so that they meet the unique needs of partner municipalities. One library board is sufficient for a rural area such as Kent.

The Kent County Library provides free service to all 21 municipalities through the operation of 11 branches. Regardless of the size of a municipality in which branch libraries are located, the board believes their communities of interest are sufficiently large to warrant, and support, each branch library's continued existence. This centralized service is administered through one administrative operation where all functions are coordinated and the minimum number of staff are deployed to carry out these important functions. All services are costed out before projects are initiated to ensure that the most cost-effective methods are put in place.

The Kent County Library board takes considerable pride in the advances in library services developed in Kent county over the past 28 years. This is due in large part to the efficiencies and logic embodied in the centralized county system. We have established noteworthy partnerships with the Moraviantown Indian band council, the Walpole Island band council, and the Kent County separate school board's French secondary school in Paincourt. We expect that in the future we will be responsible for managing public libraries that offer free access to all up-to-date information, educational materials and recreational reading.

The Kent County Library board has always offered free library service to all residents of Kent county, including residents of the city of Chatham. In our North Maple Mall branch, in particular, located just outside of the city on Highway 40, we enjoy providing free library service to many Chatham residents. Should the municipality of Chatham, and its library, have the opportunity to join with the rest of Kent county in a new municipal structure we are willing, and have the necessary expertise, to expand our library by welcoming the Chatham Public Library and managing it as an additional branch.

Library services must remain at the upper-tier level. Putting library services at the municipal level means that some libraries will be well looked after but others will be lost in the shuffle. Soft services like libraries will be at the end of the line for funding after hard services such as roads and sewers.

1440

Libraries are an essential part of developing a literate population. Story hours for three- and four-year-olds and Tales for Twos are important as starting points for lifelong literacy. Children who are exposed to books and learn to love reading have a better chance of being successful in whatever their pursuits are in their future life. Parents who aren't as literate as they would like to be receive assistance at the library and learn how important books and reading are in their child's development. Library services must not be downsized but must be enlarged so that everyone can profit from a viable library situation.

Why would anyone want to step back 50 years by having libraries return to the municipal jurisdiction? In Kent county, the Kent County Library board has spent 28 years building up our library system. All our libraries have computers and computer necessities in them. One library is already on the Internet and by July nine more libraries will also be on the Internet. The county library board has worked hard to see that all citizens of the county have equitable access to books, CDs, computers, videos and the Internet. A person living in a village has as much right to library services as one who lives in a town or city. Keeping the library affairs at the county or upper tier keeps the fairness in the services.

Questions arise quickly when the act is perused.

First, in a newly restructured municipality what are the legal obligations and responsibilities, as referred to in the proposed legislation, regarding the operation of a public library? Will a municipality be required to provide such a service either directly or through a contractual arrangement?

Second, library boards and staff should have the ultimate authority to set and charge fees if they become necessary. Of course such action would have to be endorsed by the governing municipal council. Therefore, such responsibility should be included in the Public Libraries Act and not the Municipal Act.

Third, there are many existing effective library boards that comprise a majority of elected officials. One cannot generalize and say that volunteer and/or citizen boards are the most effective or efficient. Perhaps the Kent County Library board is a case in point as it has both elected and appointed board members.

Fourth, if the province withdraws financial support for the operation of public libraries, then what role should the government and its related agencies play in the future? Who will set the standard or direction for local library service? Who will champion the cause for library standards in Ontario? Without an upper-tier coordinating role public library service will decline.

Library boards today are looking for partnerships to help offset the lack of grants from the provincial government. It is difficult to do this, however, as every not-for-profit group seems to be doing the same thing. The Kent County Library is looking to Industry Canada for assistance with computer technology. Local service groups and organizations help everyone by gifts to the libraries. Social services are working cooperatively with the Kent County Library to enhance service to rural social service recipients as well as provide long-term benefits to the entire county. Corporate sponsorship is also another area of funding. The provincial grants are down by 40% or $96,000, a major sum of provincial money for which the Kent County Library must find replacement funds. We are not hopeful that municipalities will fund libraries 100%.

Kent county has a population of about 62,000 people. Of those, 32,332 are library card holders. Over the 1996 year, 339,694 items were circulated at 11 branches of the Kent County Library. In January 1997 alone, computer use in the county library system was 10,945. When all the libraries are on the Internet, computer use will go much higher. On April 11 the Kent County Library, in conjunction with the village of Wheatley, the provincial and federal governments through the infrastructure program, will open a new library in Wheatley. Kent County Library believes that small towns should have access to a good upper-tier library system throughout the county. Keeping the library affairs at the upper-tier level keeps the fairness in the services.

People in small towns and villages do not have access to public transportation to take them to libraries. Not everyone has a computer, so being able to surf the Net and be in touch with events worldwide is also important. Being able to choose a book for yourself or ask that one be requested for you is also a necessity for booklovers and avid readers. Even Bill Gates likes to hold an actual book when reading. Most library patrons have the same opinion. Who among us has not thought of the pleasure of curling up with a good book as a panacea for living in our stressful society?

The Chair: Thank you very much. We only have two minutes left, and that goes to Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. If I can pick an overall theme out of your very excellent presentation, I think it's the sense that what we're doing here is taking us back to a time when we had a patchwork of library services, if we had them at all, in various parts of the province. All of us have come to understand that if anything at all gives us an edge or an advantage or an opportunity, it's information; we all need information.

As this province is so widely spread, I think it's important that we as a provincial entity make sure we gather resources and spread them out in a way that will allow other communities to have in place systems such as libraries that will enhance everybody's ability to participate.

I know from other presentations and from conversations I've had that we have in Ontario one of the best library systems in probably the world. It's your contention that if we do what is being suggested in this bill, we will lose some of that. Would you like to elaborate further on that?

Ms Thompson: What people have to realize is that the same pattern does not fit every library. Our libraries work because we work cooperatively and each person in the county pays towards the library system. If you go down to having the libraries only in specific municipalities, some of the smaller villages will not be able to support them. They need the assistance of surrounding county people to keep them going. I think you have to consider that.

FRIENDS OF THE LONDON PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would the representatives from the Friends of the London Public Library please come forward. Good afternoon and welcome to the committee.

Ms Viola Poletes: Thank you very much. I'm Viola Poletes, vice-president of Friends of the London Public Library. Our president, Stan Skrzeszewski, is stuck in Toronto traffic, so I bring apologies from him.

We've decided to focus our brief this afternoon into four areas: changes in library vision, changes in library governance, changes in library financing, and changes in library networking. We'll begin with library vision.

The current Public Libraries Act, although not strong on vision or purpose, did provide some general guidance for the provision of public library services. Section 20 of the existing act states, "A board...shall seek to provide, in cooperation with other boards, a comprehensive and efficient public library service that reflects the communities unique needs."

Section 10 of the proposed act states, "A board...may cooperate with other boards to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service linked to the province-wide public library network."

The proposed act takes what little provincial vision existed for public library services and reduces it to "may cooperate" and "may provide." In other words, the proposed act becomes a minimalist administrative document, with no overall vision for the role of the public library in the province of Ontario.

Minister Mushinski's letter of January 15, 1997, points out that in the proposed legislation "municipalities are being given full authority to provide and effectively manage library services in the community." But this is not quite true. Municipalities don't have total control, as evidenced in the regulation to amend Ontario regulation 26/96 made under the Municipal Act. It is now every municipality for itself, and any kind of inter-community cooperation or province-wide cooperation is allowed but not required.

In essence, the well-to-do municipalities will be able to afford high-quality library services and poor municipalities will not. The government of Ontario has decided that it is not up to the government to ensure that we do not have an information-rich and an information-poor division in the province. Ontario will have an information-poor, and they will largely be based in small, rural and northern Ontario.

It seems that the government of Ontario has forgotten just why we have provincial governments. Provincial governments exist to distribute wealth and to set provincial goals and standards. When it comes to public libraries, the government of Ontario has abandoned its role, all in the name of role clarification and lowering costs. In the complex and multi-faceted world we live in, it makes no sense to talk about simplification. A simple solution to a complex situation will not work.

1450

The Friends of the London Public Library suggest that the minister and her staff review One Place to Look: The Ontario Library Strategic Plan and try to put some of the vision contained in that document into the new legislation. One Place to Look identifies four basic goals:

Goal A: Every Ontarian will have access to information resources within the province through an integrated system of partnerships among all types of information providers.

Goal B: Every Ontarian will receive public library service that is accurate, timely and responsive to individual and community needs.

Goal C: Every Ontarian will receive library service that meets recognized levels of excellence from trained and service-oriented staff, governed by responsible trustees.

Goal D: Every Ontarian will have access to the resources and services of all public libraries without barriers or charges.

Changes in library governance: Public libraries exist to ensure that all citizens have access to information and knowledge, no matter in what format or whether the information and knowledge is presented in a recreational or educational way. The most important reason for citizens to have access to the resources of a public library is so they can gain knowledge independently of any form of institutional or public control. In this way, a citizen can make informed and independent decisions about social, economic or political choices.

In this sense, public libraries provide a service that is above elected governments, whether they are local or upper-tier. Public libraries are a source of knowledge which ultimately allows citizens to make the best possible choices and which enables citizens to judge the decisions made by the officials they elect to govern in their interests. An informed citizenry is critical to a democracy and is a prerequirement of a democracy.

Public libraries are one of the bulwarks of an informed citizenry. Therefore, it is critical that the boards governing public libraries include citizens who are responsible to the community of citizens and not elected officials. Although elected bodies may appoint citizens to library boards, they must not control them. Public libraries must include a majority of citizen representatives, because they are one of society's controls over elected bodies.

To state that "there will be no requirement that citizens must constitute a majority of the members of library boards," as did the fact sheet on the proposed legislation released by the ministry, shows a lack of understanding of the function of public libraries. The Friends of the London Public Library state with utmost conviction that public library boards must be controlled by citizens.

Library financing: The proposed legislation does not guarantee free access to library services. In fact, section 14 states, "A board may charge fees for public library services in accordance with the Municipal Act and any regulations made under that act."

Under the changes in the regulation to amend Ontario regulation 26/96 made under the Municipal Act, municipalities are being given full authority to provide, fund and effectively manage library services in their community except that under subsection (2):

"A municipality or local board does not have the power under section 220.1 of the act to impose fees or charges for:

"(a) admission of the public to its libraries;

"(b) use by the public of its libraries' collections in the libraries;

"(c) borrowing from a public library, by residents, of books and other printed material; and

"(d) borrowing from a public library, by or for residents with a disability, of material special-formatted for persons with that disability."

Outside of the inherent contradiction in having legislation that purports to transfer full authority for public libraries to the municipalities and then states that municipalities must not charge certain fees, there are several fundamental problems with the government's approach.

First of all, the guarantees of free access must not be considered in isolation. The ministry has announced that operating grants will be phased out over a period of time, and despite the fact that these consultations are still in progress, the phasing out of operating grants is already well under way.

For many public libraries, the provincial operating grants were fundamental to maintaining reasonable levels of library service. Without the operating grants, free access simply means access to poor-quality or declining-quality library services. Although the province of Ontario has reduced funding, it has not provided any leadership in defining a new funding strategy for public libraries. Eliminating provincial library funding, while proclaiming free access to public libraries, is not acceptable and is an abrogation of responsibility.

We strongly recommend that the government of Ontario initiate discussions with representatives of the public library community, including Friends groups, to establish an effective funding strategy for the continued growth and development of public libraries in Ontario.

Second, prohibiting fees for "borrowing from a public library, by residents, of books and other printed material" means that public libraries will have to consider charging fees for electronic and audio-visual services. The friends believe that fees should not be based on the medium in which the information is provided. As Ontario is transformed into a knowledge economy, it becomes more and more important that sources of information and knowledge are made available to as many people as possible. Information fuels innovation, and innovation fuels productivity in a knowledge economy. Public libraries are a source of information in a knowledge economy. Public library user fees for electronic information services will inhibit access to the information sources that drive the economy.

Third, CD-ROM products and Internet services tend to be more cost-effective than either printed library reference tools, which require a lot of staff support, or than online services, which are not user-friendly and are charged for on a per-use basis at very high rates. For this reason, libraries have not charged for their use and have instead encouraged their use by the public because they are more economical to the library than are the other options. Public libraries should not be forced to charge a fee that will inhibit the use of electronic services, which are more cost-effective that the free services.

For these reasons, the Friends of the London Public Library recommend that charging user fees for the electronic mediums should not be considered.

Finally, library networking: Although library networking is not specifically mentioned in the new legislation, the minister has made it part of the package by making the following statement to the Legislature: "The province will continue to support the library system through partnerships, policy and funding of the province-wide network of shared resources, cooperative services and telecommunications links that connect Ontario's public libraries to each other and to global information networks."

The Friends of the London Public Library support the intent of the minister's statement. However, information on either the nature of this support or the vision for the province-wide network of shared resources has not been provided for either the Friends of the London Public Library or the people of Ontario. Therefore, the Friends recommend that the government of Ontario present a detailed description of the intended support and the vision of the province-wide network to the people of Ontario, along with a consultation process that would allow people to comment on the vision. The concept of a province-wide public library network is very important to the people of Ontario.

The Chair: Thank you very much. It was an extended brief, so we only have two and a half minutes for questions; the government caucus will be allotted that time.

Mr Stewart: Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of comments: On the first page, where you're suggesting that the existing act says "shall" and the proposed one says "may," what we're trying to do is get away from the dictatorial aspect of past legislation and allow flexibility for not only the municipalities but the people who are involved with it.

There are couple of areas that really intrigue me. I don't know whether -- you said you were presenting on behalf of another gentleman. The line on the second page: "Provincial governments exist to distribute wealth and to set provincial goals and standards." I think that's one of the problems and why we're in this mess that we are now. The past governments have assumed that we had a whole bunch of wealth and they indeed distributed it. That's why we are in debt the way we are now.

The final question is this: On page 3, it says, "The Friends of London Public Library state with utmost conviction that public library boards must be controlled by citizens." Where is the accountability to the taxpayer who is funding the libraries and the library system of this province?

Ms Poletes: Citizens are taxpayers, aren't they?

Mr Stewart: That's true, but where is the accountability? That's my concern, that if a non-elected board is set up to have control over it, where is the accountability to the people of the province? Other boards have fallen into that, where they forgot a little about the accountability to the taxpayers of the province and really did their own thing.

Ms Poletes: I don't think they're going to go hog-wild and do anything that is unreasonable. There would be a certain set of guidelines for citizen advisory boards. I can't see them --

Mr Stewart: The municipality or the council or the elected officials, then, should have a certain amount of say in this process. I guess the part that struck me was the -- where was it? -- "ultimate" or "must have control." I guess that worries me a little bit, that boards get that way, unfortunately.

What I'm saying is, you elect people to do the job. Whether or not you like what they're doing remains to be seen, but I think there's got to be some type of accountability, some type of control in there, because boards -- and we've all been members of them -- tend to get carried away sometimes. I think we have to have some control. That was my concern. I appreciate it. Thank you.

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

1500

CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would David Scott please come forward. Good afternoon, Mr Scott, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Dave Scott: Mr Chairman, vice-chair, members of the committee, my name is Dave Scott. I'm the vice-chair of the Cambridge Public Library board.

Of all the public institutions in this province, the public library system was the least in need of change, yet Bill 109 threatens what it took six generations to create: the arm's-length public library board with citizen volunteers as a majority. Bill 109 is change for change's sake, designed to fix a non-existent problem.

The Cambridge Public Library board finds it hard to understand why the government is proposing this bill at all, since it harms that which it claims to protect. The government says it supports the continuation of separate library boards, yet the legislation gives such latitude to municipal councils that it is open to abuse and circumvention of the spirit of the act. With this open-ended piece of legislation, there's a gulf between what the government says it intends and what could actually happen.

You will have heard from many other delegations that volunteer library boards have been in place since the Free Public Libraries Act of 1882. Voluntary boards of citizens have created and maintained a public library system and a province-wide network that is second to none. Such boards have vigorously defended intellectual freedom and the right of all citizens to free access to information.

The government says it fully supports these objectives, but look at what this legislation does. It takes the right of free access to information enshrined in a longstanding act of the Legislature and makes it a mere regulation that could be changed at any time and without debate.

Bill 109 is built upon a disappointing foundation: the Crombie panel on municipal government. The panel did no research and provided no rationale for its recommendations, nor any background documentation. It held no consultations. It at once acknowledged that Ontario had a library system "among the best in the world," and then recommended sweeping changes to the very structure that produced this exceptional result. It's hard not to come to the conclusion that in order to be consistent with the sweeping changes in other areas, the panel felt it had to bring libraries into line no matter how damaging the results; in other words, to fix something that wasn't broken.

My colleagues on the library board are at a loss, as am I, to understand why this issue has been brought up in the first place. As long ago as 1995, when the municipal review committee was looking at this issue, our own member of Parliament, Gerry Martiniuk, wrote to Ernie Hardeman, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I won't read his whole letter but I will read you his concluding sentence. He said, "I believe it is important that these independent, no-cost boards are continued to preserve our library services."

Bill 109 is said to give municipalities full control over library budgets, but municipalities already had that control under the 1984 Public Libraries Act which is now to be superseded by Bill 109. I think contrary to what Mr Stewart was saying earlier, there is full budgetary control, full recall control and full appointment control from municipalities now under the existing legislation. Library boards exist to be accountable to elected municipal councils. We serve at their pleasure.

Bill 109 is said to make more appropriate administrative structures possible. Yet is there any hard evidence to show that this is not now being done under the existing legislation? No, there is no evidence whatsoever. Under the present legislation, there is absolutely no barrier to developing cost-effective service delivery. The Cambridge Public Library is among the most efficient in the province in this, and it is the result of the efforts of a hardworking volunteer board and a dedicated and resourceful staff. Cambridge has integrated the purchasing and financial administration of the library with that of the municipality. With its present citizen-dominated, separate library board, Cambridge has worked closely with its council to successfully address the financial pressures of the past few years and is perfectly capable of doing so in the future without a change in the legislation.

Bill 109 is said to encourage voluntarism. A hugely successful level of voluntarism now thrives under the guidance of 3,500 volunteer trustees, who work without compensation of any kind. Will this broadly based voluntarism continue under the effects of this bill? Apparently the province hopes so, but without any evidence.

Bill 109 gives municipalities the right to decide whether local library boards are to exist at all. This attacks an historic arm's-length relationship and makes independent scrutiny of intellectual freedom and service delivery impossible. The bill will allow a council in a community which didn't support the concept of a board to turn the library board into a committee of council in all but name, or it could manipulate the legislation to the degree where the board could be composed of a single member, perhaps the CAO of the city, making the library into a city department.

Special interest groups will quickly realize that if they wish to have materials inconsistent with their beliefs removed from public library shelves, they will be able to go to council and pressure for elimination of the library board. Or if, as seems likely, many municipalities gradually find it more convenient to have libraries operate as mere city departments, special interest groups will find it infinitely easier to directly pressure council members to ban or remove materials. In such an environment, library staff could begin to avoid purchasing materials that might be deemed controversial in any way just to avoid problems. Is this desirable in a healthy and open society such as ours?

Bill 109 is said to allow for the development of library policies and programs. But if the library board is reduced to a committee of council, municipal councillors and staff will have limited time to address services as specific as the library and, for instance, its level of children's programming. Less attention will be paid and decisions will become, by default, subject to unrelated pressures on municipal staff. I would point out to the members of the committee that if you look at your speakers list over the preceding days and the days to come, you will see how important this issue is to municipal politicians by the lack of them on your speakers list. Instead of citizen-based library boards making decisions on library service, in practice unelected municipal bureaucrats will be making the service decisions. How can this be an improvement?

Bill 109 is said to encourage merging public library service with schools or other specialized libraries. We know there are potential savings available in partnerships, but is legislative change necessary to encourage this? We think not. For example, under the existing legislation and with the active involvement of the existing volunteer board, we in Cambridge have negotiated a joint library facility with the Waterloo region separate school board. As a result, the new St Benedict high school in Cambridge will have a school library larger than its gym, and an underserved area of Cambridge will have an excellent branch public library years before it might have. We needed no new bill to make this happen; the trustees and the senior library staff made this happen under the existing legislation.

Bill 109 purports to preserve the free use of library materials, but it is clear that the bill refers only to traditional materials and in-library use, and the coming tide of electronic-based information will either be unavailable or priced out of the reach of those who would most benefit from it.

In the area of fees, the new act depends entirely upon the goodwill and understanding of municipal councils to uphold the objectives of public libraries. These include ensuring that the general population, regardless of their means, is not limited in access to public information. What was once guaranteed under the Public Libraries Act is now to become a pious hope.

A great deal more could be said about the ways in which this provincial library system is not broken, and as many reasons why it doesn't need fixing. However, if the government must look to a new model for library services, we say look at the Police Services Act, which was tabled a few days prior to this new library legislation. It recommends basically the model that most people in the library community could live with. Essentially, it provides for an arm's-length board with majority citizen participation. If nothing else, it would provide consistency in the government's approach to special-purpose bodies.

1510

If this bill must go ahead despite all that has been said against it, we feel strongly that there are ways to improve it to mitigate the harm it does to this important institution. The government says the spirit of the legislation supports the continuation of separate library boards with a citizen majority. To ensure this happens, we strongly urge that the government amend the bill to mandate the following: (1) library board meetings should be held in public; (2) library boards should have a minimum number of trustees -- we suggest five; (3) appointments to library boards should be publicly advertised; (4) the majority of the trustees should be citizen appointees of the municipality; (5) no municipal or library staff should be eligible for appointment to library boards; and (6) there should be a minimum number of library board meetings annually -- we suggest six.

The Cambridge Public Library Board believes the key to effective public library service and to the defense of intellectual freedom is majority citizen involvement in the governance of libraries. We would urge the government not to discard a method of governance that has worked well for this province for more than 100 years.

Mr Skarica: I find these submissions that you've made very interesting in that I contrast them to the submissions I heard from -- I was on the school board hearings, and there we heard parents say they didn't want more say in how school boards are run; they wanted the locally elected officials to do it. Here you have a system where apparently citizens control many of the library boards and locally elected people don't, and you don't want that changed.

Perhaps I could ask you, what's your relationship to your council now, and how do you see that changing? As you've indicated, most elected representatives apparently aren't much interested in this area. Why wouldn't they just leave it the way it is now, even with this legislation?

Mr Scott: In the short run, I expect that in Cambridge, because we have such an excellent working relationship, there will be very little change. We're actually trying here to address the general as opposed to the specific; we're trying to address the principle. So I don't expect that in this council or the next council these changes will happen, or, if they happen, they will not happen quickly.

Our relationship, though, is excellent. I repeat what I said before: We have a well-developed, written and well-publicized acquisition policy, we have a well-developed and well-publicized recall and appeal procedure that is known to the public and to the council, and we have received excellent support from the council at all levels, including at the budgetary level.

Mr Gravelle: Mr Scott, I think your presentation hit the nail on the head and it was expressed in a remarkably strong and clearheaded way. The fact is that this bill is not about improving library service ultimately; it really is about the downloading to municipalities. It's putting municipalities into a corner where they've got to find revenue because of the loss. It's about giving them some of the tools that they don't even really want. You're right, that's why a lot of them aren't here: They don't want to have it.

The fact is, if you look at the rhetoric in the bill, if you look at what the minister is saying in the bill, if she wants to retain some credibility in terms of this, it's really crucial that some of these amendments are put in. We can all look and see what amendments do pass. I think you made your point incredibly strongly and clearly that citizen majority boards -- your point to Mr Stewart at the beginning. The fact is that they act responsibly; they do operate within municipal budget guidelines. I just want to tell you that I think you made your points incredibly clearly. I expect the minister will simply have to be -- we'll have to watch, because if there aren't any amendments that reflect this, then it's clear this is not a bill or a piece of legislation that in any way could improve library service. In whatever time we have left, tell me what you want to add to that.

Mr Scott: I don't want to add anything more than the points I've made, that if this bill is to go ahead despite all of the very good arguments against it, then I would urge that those amendments be made in order to retain at least the vestige of majority citizen participation.

Mr Martin: Most of the arguments that you've presented here today have been made by others in one form or another, and indeed even though we're not getting a massive number of municipal politicians coming, we certainly are getting quite a significant number of people concerned about the library system coming. Yesterday, all day, in the Legislature committee room, it was packed. It was standing room only at some points in the day. Friends of libraries, people from library boards, interested individuals coming to share with us their concern about this.

Today we have the same thing. Since 9 o'clock this morning this room has been virtually full of people with tremendous interest in this, concerned about the library system and showing their concern by taking time out of what was probably a busy schedule to be here, as you're doing, to present.

My hunch is that this is about money. It's about downloading. It's about trying to get money out of systems, any systems. It doesn't matter how valuable or essential they are to anything else. The only way it seems this government feels it can successfully get money out of the library system is to turn it over to the municipalities. They'll get it and then they'll be blamed for it and then ultimately you, as the board, if you're left, will have to make the real ugly decisions about cutting services. Then you'll get blamed and they won't. Do you share that sense or feeling or perhaps that rationale behind this?

Mr Scott: The feeling I share is that we work very hard at running a very lean and very efficient library system. I do not see where the savings exist by getting rid of unpaid, no-cost boards that are widely drawn from across the community. It makes no sense to me. I'm not billing the Cambridge library board for the time I spend on it; neither are the other people on the board. We do this because we think this is important. If we vanish tomorrow, if the government vaporises us tomorrow, not a dime is saved, not for the provincial government, not for the municipality. Eventually, the money is still going to have to come out of the citizen's pocket or service is going to have to be reduced and I don't think the citizens want that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Scott. We've run out of time. We appreciate you coming here today.

ST THOMAS PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Vice-Chair: I'd like to call on Rick Pargeter, the chair of the St Thomas Public Library board. Good afternoon, Mr Pargeter, and welcome to the standing committee.

Mr Rick Pargeter: Thank you. My name is Rick Pargeter. I'm chair of the St Thomas Public Library board. Carolyn Kneeshaw is chief executive officer and chief librarian of the St Thomas Public Library.

The St Thomas Public Library board appreciates the opportunity to commend the province for its acknowledgement of the value of public libraries in the purpose section of the act and to express its concerns regarding governance, funding and the provincial role in libraries.

The St Thomas Public Library board supports the present governance model of an independent body consisting of elected officials and citizen appointees. Municipal councils are assured of accountability because they make the appointments to the boards and control the library budgets. It has been our experience over the years that the citizen appointees bring expertise, time and energy to the library. They are in tune with the community interests and needs and have the time to focus on issues specific to libraries. Their commitment to voluntarism supports the government's desire to increase voluntarism in each community and inspires others to participate in volunteer activities.

Our library has an active friends group and more than 100 volunteers who assist with the delivery of materials to the elderly and participate in many fund-raising events. An independent board with a mandate to provide equitable access to public knowledge is prepared to withstand pressures during challenges to intellectual freedom and, with its arm's-length relationship to council, may serve as a buffer when issues of censorship arise. An independent library board can be accountable, responsive to community needs and a cost-effective means of delivering library services.

The board considers funding the critical issue. The board is concerned that the elimination of provincial financial support in the form of household grants will erode the impact of the provincial role in encouraging and supporting resource-sharing among libraries throughout Ontario. The provincial role in developing and maintaining a provincial database of library holdings and the delivery of materials through the interlibrary loan service is essential to the equity of access that we all value.

1520

The ability to have access to each other's collections allows libraries to focus on areas of strong local interest and to borrow other items when needed, thus saving money and eliminating unnecessary duplication. Without a clear provincial role there is a danger that municipalities will tend to look at the cost of sending material to other libraries rather than the advantage to the local library of borrowing instead of purchasing.

The province has recognized the contribution that individual libraries make to the provincial library system by providing funding through the household grants. The loss of provincial funding to the libraries has increased the pressure on the municipality when it can least afford to replace the lost revenue.

The rationale for phasing out provincial operating grants to libraries as explained in a ministry fact sheet was that "municipalities presently provide the great majority of library funding. The responsibility for funding education will be removed from municipalities. This will give local authorities greater financial flexibility to fund other services, including libraries." There is an assumption but no guarantee that municipalities will fund the difference.

The board recommends that a per capita funding requirement be written into the act to ensure that this lost funding is replaced. It is ironic that the province is moving toward more control of education while at the same time giving up its responsibility for libraries to the municipalities. What better way to encourage learning than by supporting a public library system? The province needs to do more than establish a series of principles if it truly believes in public libraries.

The educational role of libraries points to greater provincial responsibility given the provincial move towards a larger role in the public school system. Both public education and public libraries were founded on the principle that education benefits all of society and therefore should be publicly funded.

Public libraries have long been recognized for their role as a resource in formal and informal education. Teachers are becoming more dependent on the public library for curriculum support material and students require a broad collection for their independent studies.

Libraries have been called the people's universities because of their importance to lifelong learning. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, in its 1996 Public Attitudes Towards Education in Ontario survey, reported that 98% of the respondents said the public libraries were important in furthering the education of adults after completing their formal schooling. A further 81% thought that public libraries should become the main place where people can use computerized information networks in local communities if they cannot connect from their home or workplace.

The St Thomas Public Library strongly supports this role of electronic information provider and was in fact awarded the ministry's Award for Innovation in 1995 for its role in establishing the Elgin and St Thomas Community Centre for Information Access. The purpose of the CCIA was to introduce people to new information technology, in particular the Internet, and provide a foundation for future economic growth in St Thomas and Elgin county. The library was selected by its community partners as the appropriate site because of its role as information provider.

Libraries have been under many different ministries over the years. The question has been, where is the best fit? There is a strong argument for a stronger relationship between libraries and education, in particular a closer liaison with school libraries. If the library is viewed as a municipal responsibility, the question of where we fit is asked again. The board prefers to be lumped with education rather than with ball diamonds and sewers. It makes a better fit.

The government has stated that it wants to give people a hand up, not a hand out. Libraries provide an opportunity for all people, regardless of family background or financial status, to educate themselves and contribute to society. Libraries are worthy of both municipal and provincial financial support.

The board has struggled with the issue of user fees and, because of the severe financial constraints on our library, is prepared to implement them if necessary to ensure the survival of library services.

Mr Shea: That was a very helpful presentation. You raised a couple of points that are worthy of some more considered review. As I preface my question, you understand the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has given a very strong endorsement to the legislation that's before us now, and as we've gone through the hearings we've found the municipalities on one side of the equation and some library boards, not all, unlike what my colleagues would have you believe, on the other side, as though there's some kind of confrontation here. Have you a sense of why that's the case?

Mr Pargeter: First of all, let me say that our board currently has and has had for many years a very positive, amicable relationship with our city council. I believe our city council supports library services within our community. Our concern lies in the fact that we don't believe the type of services we provide best fit within the realm of the municipality. We are a lifelong learning institute. More and more of our customers are there to educate themselves. That is a service unlike anything else the municipality currently provides.

Mr Shea: You raised that point very succinctly in your second last paragraph, so I appreciate that.

I was puzzled by your comments, and I have seen almost exactly the same wording now in about five or six deputations: "An independent board with a mandate to provide equitable access to public knowledge is prepared to withstand pressure during challenges to intellectual freedom and, with its arm's-length relationship to council, may serve as a buffer when issues of censorship arise." Let me just very quickly ask you: Why should there be a buffer between elected representatives and the people they represent, and in what way can a library board in fact give any kind of additional response to a very thorny issue than could directly elected councils?

Mr Pargeter: Our mandate as a board is to provide equitable library services to the community. That differs somewhat from a broader role that the council must play, and that is to other concerns of the electorate that we do not necessarily need to succumb to.

Mr Shea: I don't understand.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry; we're running out of time on this issue. I appreciate the complexity of the question. I must ask Mr Gravelle.

Mr Shea: I'd be happy to have a written response later.

Mr Pargeter: We will provide that for you, Mr Shea.

Mr Gravelle: Thanks very much, Mr Pargeter. I think you've actually made an important link with your presentation today. It's been there but it's never been stated quite as clearly as yours, which is that libraries are part of our educational system, that there is a very natural link obviously between the educational system and libraries. One can make the argument that it seems very odd that the government is saying, "We'll take over education but we're going to send this back." You do make a strong point that that's the case, and I think probably the fact that some of the municipalities have been supporting the legislation is simply because it gives them some freedoms that they absolutely have to have in order to deal with some of the downloading.

I'm just curious about hearing more about your thoughts on the whole aspect of the provincial government itself. The fact is the lifelong learning concept is one the minister would probably agree with and I'm just wondering why she wouldn't accept the fact that indeed the provincial funding should remain part of that whole purpose.

Mr Pargeter: I don't like to repeat myself, but we believe that the role our library, and all libraries for that matter, provides the community is a source of information and a vehicle by which they can gain knowledge. That, we believe, better fits within the realm of education. If you look at how libraries have bounced around, over the years, between one ministry and another, I don't believe anybody really has a firm grip on where we belong, and it is our belief that we certainly don't belong with the municipalities, competing for funds earmarked for sidewalks and road construction.

1530

Mr Martin: I appreciate as well the effort that obviously went into putting this brief together and your coming here today to challenge all of us in our decision-making. As I've gone through this process for close to two days now, I can't help but think that this really isn't about library services; this is about this government finding money to meet its targets. Among those targets is a tax break to the better-off out there. That's creating all kinds of pressure on the delivery of services on a local level in communities, and certainly libraries are one of those.

I note today in the paper that the Minister of Finance has finally 'fessed up to the fact that municipalities, on top of the download, are now going to have to find a way to deal with the removal of the local business tax that was initially said not to be too significant but now is being discovered to be very significant. Municipalities -- this is his comment -- are going to have to deal with it. They're going to have to raise taxes on either the residential or the small business sector -- the winners here are the big developers and the banks -- and are going to have to turn their cross-hairs on libraries and swimming pools and all that kind of thing.

Mr Pargeter: In all fairness to the municipality, there are perhaps some economies of scale that could be realized by grouping us with a municipality in terms of clerical functions, accounting functions, maintenance functions, other non-library-type services, if you like. That's my view on why that would likely be the case.

The Vice-Chair: We've run out of time. Thank you very much for coming here today and making your views known to us.

CITY OF ST THOMAS

The Vice-Chair: I call upon Alderman Helen Schram. Good afternoon, and welcome to the standing committee. You have 15 minutes in which to make your presentation.

Ms Helen Schram: We very much appreciate the opportunity to be here this afternoon. As you've already stated, I'm Alderman Helen Schram from the city of St Thomas. With me is our chief administrative officer, Roy Main, and together we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have after we speak.

The city of St Thomas is grateful for the opportunity to provide input into the proposed Bill 109 and the various changes contemplated for the operation of public libraries. The ministry is to be applauded for its intention to establish an act wherein the municipality will have full authority to provide and effectively manage its library services. It is critically important, with the many other changes taking place, that municipalities be provided with the appropriate tools and mechanisms to accompany the responsibility for every service it is to provide.

It is with this general promise that the municipality provides the following comments on the act and urges the ministry to make modifications in the proposed legislation.

There are sections of the act where the city concurs with the proposed legislation and in particular urges the ministry to retain in any final draft of the new act. These sections are (1) the continued provincial support of and involvement in the province-wide public library network, (2) the guarantee of access to the library, and (3) the availability of special-format materials to residents with disabilities at no cost.

Each of the above speaks to the general intent of our library systems. The value of libraries as prominent sources of information and accessible bridges for the information gap cannot be overstated. There is a role for the province to play in the information industry as well, and the continuation of interlibrary access is an appropriate means for provincial participation.

The city does have two areas of concern with the existing legislation and respectfully requests the ministry to reconsider and make the necessary amendments to the final act.

The first issue is in relation to the proposed format for governance. The act requires the establishment of a board to oversee the library operation. While authority has been granted to the municipality with respect to size, composition and responsibility, the proposed legislation is restrictive in this one form of governance. It is strongly suggested that the municipality have the option of making the library the responsibility of the council or a committee of council or any other format, along with the option of appointing a board.

Libraries have many direct connections with the municipal operation and economies can easily be realized in the areas of finance, human resource management, information services and facilities management. The need for a board as the only option of governance is restrictive and removes flexibility for the municipality. The efforts of the Who Does What panel and the entire mega-week announcements were to reformat governance so that disentanglement could be achieved and opportunities for cost savings be enhanced. These can best be achieved when municipalities have the greatest degree of flexibility.

The second concern is the prohibition of user fees and other similar such charges for whatever services are deemed appropriate. The stipulation of guaranteed free access to material places unnecessary financial handcuffs on the operation of the library. The exclusion presently provided within the draft legislation is a denial for the library to explore all means of raising revenue and covering the costs associated with the operation. It is requested that the ministry give further consideration to amending the act so that the library be given the flexibility to impose cost recovery charges for whatever service it deems appropriate.

The minister has stated that the new act will improve the delivery of library services and lower the cost for services because local officials know what is best for their communities. The city concurs that local officials do know what is best. As a consequence, the issue of governance and the ability to determine what should be free and what should be cost recoverable should fall under the mandate of the municipal council.

The act in its present form is negligent in these two areas, and the city respectfully requests appropriate amendments before the final legislation is passed.

1540

Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon. I find it a little confusing. I certainly appreciate the straightforwardness of what you're asking for, but I was just looking for the brief from -- this morning we heard from another presenter who made it very clear that administrative efficiencies, melding departments, all these things, have been done in a number of communities with the governance situation the way it is now, that it is by no means an impediment to having savings. How does the governance situation as it stands now mitigate against you being able to make some of the savings?

Ms Schram: At present, our library and library board is an independent body that is funded by the city. To the extent that we provide the dollars, they make the decisions on how those dollars will be spent. If we are forced to look at how we're going to continue to fund our operations within the city of St Thomas, given the fact that we are doing it in reduced circumstances, we need to have greater control over how we can operate.

Mr Gravelle: But you determine the budget amount, as you will determine it next year. Obviously, you're under great pressures, like all communities are, and potentially much greater pressures in the future. The presenter this morning made it very clear that the library board he specifically mentioned, but I'm sure there are others, basically worked with the community and with the council. You might tell me that that isn't happening in your case, but I find that a little strange. It seems to be at odds with what we've been hearing in terms of the relationship between the library boards and the fact that the municipal councils have the line-by-line control of the budget. They did it that way and the library boards have to accept the realities.

Ms Schram: It is happening in our case. There are many instances of where we are sharing and thereby saving costs, but we need more flexibility to continue to save those costs. If we're being given the responsibility for completely funding libraries, we should have complete say on how they run. At this time, we do not have that. What we're stating is that if these changes are to take place, we would like to have the option of deciding what sort of governance takes places within our community. Wouldn't you agree, Roy?

Mr Gravelle: It sounds like you're saying that with some reluctance. In other words: "In that we're being put in this position, we feel that is the only position we can take. If this is what we have to deal with, we feel we need this level of control."

Ms Schram: It's not reluctance, sir. We're faced with operating in reduced circumstances. We will have less money to do business, so we have to look at new ways of continuing to offer the same services we offer to our community at present and do it with less dollars. Thereby, we need a different way of governing so we can do that.

Mr Martin: I understand the pressure you're under. I sensed from the presentation by AMO yesterday that they were under the same pressure, that they were feeling the same angst about all this, that it isn't something they're going into gladly and excitedly. It's almost being foisted upon them because of the fiscal reality, the downloading -- you were probably here when I talked about the further impact the Minister of Finance is now agreeing is going to happen to you -- and how you deal with all of that.

Ms Schram: Absolutely.

Mr Martin: Then again, on the other hand we've had people come before us who have worked very hard, very committed and sincere people who have done everything in their power to make their libraries work in their communities. They work cooperatively with council. There's a creative tension always there. I think that's healthy in a democracy, to try and make sure that the best of library services, given the limited finances available, are in place. They suggest that the checks and balances needed are already there. They spend a lot of time, come from a place where they know and they understand library systems. It's second nature to them: They live it, they breathe it; they eat it, some of them. They want to put that together with you, who have a very real responsibility to the taxpayer on this limited pot of money you now have to spend. Is there no way of cooperatively doing that, short of putting it all together so that you have control? You said it just a minute ago. You want to be in control.

Ms Schram: First of all, let me say that there is no division between the city of St Thomas and the St Thomas Public Library board. A number of elected representatives sit on the board. I myself, during my entire first term of council, three years, sat on the library board. I have a great deal of regard for the individuals who work for the library board and those who are on the board now. I think they provide an excellent service in times of restraint. They have performed admirably against all kinds of restrictions.

I am not saying that a library board is not the best way to go. I am saying, do not give that to us as our only option. We want to have the freedom and the flexibility to choose what we should look like. We may decide, when we sit down and discuss it, that perhaps there is a better route to go. But at this point in time, one of the things we want to look at is, would the library and the citizens of St Thomas be better served if it was a committee of council or a department of the city? Until we sit down and look at all of the options involved, we don't know that. We're simply asking you to look at the proposed legislation and give us the freedom to make the choices we need to make that would be best for our community and others like us.

Mr Shea: St Thomas has become the quintessential illustration. You were preceded by your library board and now the council is here, and you have probably cut right to the crux of the whole debate. Let me take advantage of that, because time is very brief. I'll go quickly. I appreciate the title "alderman" before me as well. It's been a while since I've borne that title and it's an honourable one.

What we have before us right now, as you will understand, alderman, is that the opposition would have you believe that in terms of Bill 109, this is an issue just of dollars. The government would also say, more importantly, this is an issue of democracy and democratic process; this is a question of democratic responsibility and accountability. I want to cut to that question very quickly.

First of all let me ask you, are you aware, as a member of council, how you would recall a member of a library board?

Ms Schram: I must confess that I'm not.

Mr Shea: The answer is no. I understand that, and when you read the current legislation, you'll be astonished to note what little authority you have.

When you approve your library board's budget, what happens if the library board varies from your line-by-line approvals and begins to find other priorities and expenditure lines? What's your control at that point?

Ms Schram: What is our control of our budget once we allocate so many dollars?

Mr Shea: Once you have approved the library board's budget and that is now in the stream and it is done and finished, there's an imprimatur laid on it, what controls do you have if the library board does not report back to council but makes changes within its budget?

Ms Schram: Not a lot.

Mr Shea: Thank you. Let me ask you the question in terms of, if the library board is opposed by the public, if the library board is doing something that has outraged the public, to whom does the public appeal?

Ms Schram: They will certainly come to us.

Mr Shea: What can you do about it? Would the words "not much" ring true?

Ms Schram: I don't wish to be unfair to the library board but I would suggest that what we would do in this particular case -- I know what would happen in our community. We would sit down together and talk about it and come to some resolution.

Mr Shea: I applaud that. That's the way a democratic process would run, but in terms of the constitutional structure, you have no control.

Library boards have come before us for the last two days and they have suggested that putting council members on library boards is not an appropriate thing to do because council members really, in most cases, neither have the time nor the interest nor the ability to give appropriate attention to library issues. Do you agree with that?

Ms Schram: No. I think that when we become an elected official, one of the things we do is commit ourselves to the amount of time that it takes.

Mr Shea: You are supposed to be involved, in other words.

Ms Schram: Yes, we are supposed to be involved, and we are.

Mr Shea: It has been charged that you can't get involved in thorny issues, that by having a buffer between you and the public, somehow matters can be resolved more amenably and more effectively. Do you agree with that?

Ms Schram: I wish someone had told me that six years ago when I ran for council.

Mr Shea: Do you agree, though? Is that the case? Should there be a buffer between you and the people who elect you?

Ms Schram: No, of course not.

Mr Shea: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much for appearing here before us today.

1550

BRUCE COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: I call on Tom Boyle, the Bruce county public board chair, please. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr Tom Boyle: I'm Tom Boyle, as was said, and I am an elected representative from Bruce county and chairman of the Bruce County Public Library board. The Bruce county library is a system of 18 branches stretching from Kincardine to Tobermory, with headquarters in Port Elgin, Ontario. I bring with me today Marzio Apolloni, who is the director of our system.

I'd like to make opinion on and bring to the committee here five points.

One is dealing with rural libraries. The loss of provincial funding will have a serious impact on rural libraries. We anticipated the loss of provincial funding in 1998 but fully expected to see a comprehensive user-fee package which would see the province take a leading role in developing criteria which would prevent libraries from preying on each other. We would rather not have user fees, but the loss of funding is forcing us to consider this option.

A user-fee package is important to libraries in rural Ontario, where a significant part of their revenue is from the province. Currently available provincial statistics show that on average the provincial operating grant represents 25% of rural library budgets. This committee should be aware that there are a significant number of libraries that are funded between 50% and 100% by the province. Significantly, they are all rural libraries. Presently most rural libraries can only provide a basic level of service and are not as well stocked in new technology as our urban cousins.

The proposed amendments will not allow charges to be levied for that service. The decision continues to rest with the province, in spite of the fact that the current county library board structure makes it very effective and accountable. We would suggest, then, that there exists little local control as the proposed amendments now stand. As such, the title of the bill is a misnomer.

With regard to provincial funding, it was the intention of the ministry that the loss in revenue would be made up by removing education from the property tax and that the resulting savings would be flowed to services such as libraries. Unfortunately we have seen that the resulting downloading and shifting of responsibilities will leave most rural communities with a deficit. Like hospitals and seniors' homes and other people-oriented services, libraries will be under increasing pressure as the population ages. Numerous studies and publications such as Boom, Bust, and Echo suggest that a major preoccupation for our growing senior population will be reading, information and self-empowerment through lifelong learning. These pressures must be borne by the local property tax base.

We would suggest that you examine the library system in Quebec, which is well known as one of the worst in Canada, in order to avoid emulating them. Their funding system is similar to what is being proposed in Bill 109 and the downloading efforts of this government.

Capital funding: Regarding capital costs, the province has always been a strong partner. Projects have been funded from 30% to 50% of the total cost. We interpret the amendments to mean this will be gone. If this is the case, then again rural libraries, because of the tax base, will suffer greatly.

Restructuring: We believe it is the ministry's intention that transferring responsibility to the local level will result in larger units of service which will provide a stronger library service system province-wide. Yet the proposed amendments have no clear mechanism to encourage such partnerships. We believe the current amendments will result in a fractured, uneven library system with no consistency, particularly in rural Ontario.

Where you live should not determine the value of your citizenship. We believe a further amendment should be made to the Public Libraries Act to encourage the formation of larger units of service. Grey County, for example, one of our neighbours where a county library system does not exist, has seven library boards, approximately 56 trustees and seven levels of administration. We would suggest that definitions describing larger units of service such as county libraries be retained. Considering the close relationship most libraries have with their local school boards, we would also suggest that library board jurisdictions should follow those of school boards. In our case, Bruce-Grey is our area.

Further, if the school-public library relationship is to develop as suggested in the Crombie report, the Ministry of Education should be considered as a partner in funding public libraries in Ontario. This is important particularly if libraries are moving into schools, as appears to be the case in many areas of the province. This would also eliminate potential entanglement of responsibilities.

With regard to governance, we have noted a rather active discussion in the library community regarding the lack of library board membership requirements in Bill 109. Overlooked in all of this is the fact that under the current act, elected officials make up the majority on county library boards. There is no evidence to suggest that this board composition is less effective. In fact it ensures accountability to the community it serves. Apart from ensuring that the library board is representative of the community and that no members are employees of the board and county, we have no concerns with section 6.

We support the repeal of section 21 of the Public Libraries Act, which required county library boards to have the agreement of both the county council and the local municipality that operated the branch library before the county library was formed. This will allow boards to make broad service decisions. It also recognizes the changing demographics which we alluded to earlier, and I might add to that municipal amalgamations that are occurring.

Finally we would suggest that in all the points made, the recommendations of the Crombie report be considered. Rural and remote libraries and services will suffer more, and a mechanism should be established to mitigate the situation. We would appreciate if you would incorporate these suggestions into the amendments to the Public Libraries Act. All of which is respectfully submitted.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much. It's good that you came. I feel you've made a very valuable contribution to the discussion that we're having here. It evolves and unfolds as we go along.

It seems to me that what we have in front of us basically as a province is a financial challenge created in part by the government itself in some of the targets that it set and in a big part by the tax break that it wants to give to those who are fortunate enough to have a good job and the rich in the province and created by this move now to download the cost of services on to municipalities because the federal government is doing that to them. They decided, "It worked for them; we'll do it too," downloading the cost of expensive and non-fixed costs to municipalities. They think that will solve the problem.

Libraries then come into the net that's cast. It's felt by this government that to put libraries directly under the governance of municipalities -- and by way of the conversation that we've heard here this afternoon and partly yesterday, there should be no doubt in anybody's mind any more that that's where we're headed. This legislation is set up to eventually see library boards come directly under the governance and direct control of municipalities. Will that be helpful?

Mr Boyle: Maybe I'll let our director address that. He works within the system every day. I do think it would be helpful to give us the tools we need to do the job we have to do. As county councillors, we're not too bad with arithmetic. We can figure out how to manage our library systems effectively. It's always nice to have lots of money. If the toolbox is lacking the hammer and the screwdriver, then we have a problem. Maybe Mr Apolloni would like to make a comment there.

Mr Marzio Apolloni: When it comes to working with the local municipality, we have what I would describe as a pragmatic relationship with our council: whatever it takes to make things work. But the fact that we have a majority of councillors on our board, as the report stated, doesn't make any difference to us. We operate as well as we can. Again it refers back to accountability.

1600

Mr Skarica: Forgive me for saying this, sir, but when I listened to you and noted your inflection and voice, you sounded exactly like Al Leach, our Minister of Municipal Affairs, which is either a compliment or an insult, depending on your political point of view.

I found your comments regarding section 6 interesting because we had this comment from another presentation, and I'll read it to you: "Special interest groups will quickly realize that if they wish to have materials inconsistent with their beliefs removed from public library shelves, they will be able to go to council and pressure for elimination of those books." You seemed to not have any concern with that. Do you feel that will be a problem in the future?

Mr Boyle: In discussion with my director he has never exhibited any problem with the issues of censorship. It has never really come to our board in the last three years I've been on the board. It doesn't seem to be a problem. Maybe you'd think it would be a problem in rural Ontario, but it's not.

Mr Skarica: Has it ever been a problem, to your knowledge?

Mr Boyle: Not to my knowledge.

Mr Apolloni: The only time we have had an issue of censorship is usually in the school board system rather than the public library. We react to what happens in the school board by providing the actual material that they're questioning so the public can make a decision on whether it's good or bad. We've never had a problem.

Mr Skarica: It has been pointed out that when there is a book banned in the school, the public library has to buy it, to supply it.

Mr Gravelle: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very helpful. Actually the county board presentations have been really interesting today because there is obviously a distinction between county boards and other public boards in terms of communities, and I think one of the points is the whole membership of the board, that elected councillors often have more numbers. There's a reason for that, isn't there, in terms of the fact that you're representing a number of municipalities, so it works. But I take it that you wouldn't in any way denigrate the value of the non-elected members who are on the board as well. They provide a significant role of continuity, I'd presume.

Mr Boyle: Not only continuity but expertise. We can select people from the population who have experience in library business. We have members of our board now who are retired directors of library systems. So we have that option. I don't think that if we had a good board member -- I think we should be able to manipulate the numbers in our board and the proportions of our board to give us the best service from our board.

Mr Gravelle: Are you involved in the municipal amalgamation process right now? Is Bruce county involved in that at all?

Mr Boyle: Yes.

Mr Gravelle: So all this will have some real massive impact in terms of how that shakes down and in terms of how you're affected in the libraries themselves, because it gets confusing, does it not?

Mr Boyle: The libraries will probably be there after the municipalities are gone. We were there before they built the roads, so I imagine we'll be there afterwards.

Mr Gravelle: But if you've got a problem in terms of funds available, obviously that's another issue altogether. With the provincial funding absolutely disappearing and restructuring itself and the downloading happening, it does create some concerns, I presume, in terms of just being able to have the funds to do it, to maintain the services.

Mr Boyle: Yes, provincial funding is important to rural libraries right now.

Mr Gravelle: And the loss of provincial funding obviously, as you've mentioned some are funded up to 50%. I'm from northern Ontario; I know what it means in terms of some of those communities, the loss of the provincial funding, I mean. I'm not trying to lead you, but it seems to me that it's fairly obvious that it would have a fairly dramatic impact on being able to maintain certainly the level you are now. In some places, some branches are just potentially not going to be able to stay open unless you can maintain a certain level of funding.

Mr Boyle: We were forced to close two branches. We were forced to lay off an assistant director. We were forced to make cuts throughout the system. We're shutting down for two weeks this year. The loss of provincial funding is having a detrimental effect on the system. It then becomes our responsibility to encourage our communities to take a look at their libraries and focus on them a little bit more, where maybe they had not focused before. In a county system, you generally have the village or the town or the municipality supporting the walls and the carpet and the fixtures of the library, and then the Bruce county system will supply the material and staff.

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

CHATHAM PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would the representative from the Chatham Public Library board please come forward? Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee. I'd appreciate it if you'd introduce yourselves at the beginning for the benefit of the committee members.

Mr Hugh Thomas: My name is Hugh Thomas and I'm here in the unique position of city manager for the city of Chatham and CEO of the Chatham Public Library. I have with me the chair of our library, Irene Carey, and our director of library services, Sally Scherer.

We are here in support of the legislation, and I guess our presentation is going to take more of the form of a case study of what can happen if you develop a close affinity between the municipality and the library board.

I'm here to speak on behalf of the need for flexibility within the library legislation. In the challenging times ahead library boards and local councils need flexible legislation that stimulates creativity to tailor their services to the needs of their communities. Municipalities need the full authority to effectively manage library services for their citizens. Innovative local solutions will be the key to survival and to success in the new reality, a province in which municipalities are clearly expected to accomplish more with less.

The Chatham Public Library applauds the steps taken in this direction in the proposed legislation. If anything, Bill 109 does not go far enough. Since 1993, the Chatham Public Library has operated under an innovative governance structure under which I, as city manager, also serve as the CEO and secretary-treasurer of the library board. The so-called Chatham model meets the requirements of the present legislation but links the library much more closely with the city's administrative structure. For the city of Chatham, its library and its taxpayers, this change has been entirely positive.

The Chatham Public Library board took this unprecedented step because the traditional governance structure was not working. Faced with a zero-increase budget in 1991, the library temporarily suspended its reserves and bookmobile services. The following year the library budget was cut by 12%, leading to a 20% reduction in hours. The audio-visual department was closed and the bookmobile was withdrawn completely. Reserves and telephone reference services were also discontinued, eight employees were laid off, and these cutbacks had a devastating effect on staff morale. Because of the reduced hours and services, usage of the library declined.

In the spring of 1993, the library board approached the Chatham city council, looking towards increased cooperation with the city administration. In fact both the library board and the union requested the city to take the library over as an operating department. In June of that year the council offered my services as a library CEO and secretary-treasurer. The Chatham Public Library remains as an independent organization, and the board continues as a duly constituted board. The director of library services, a professional librarian, is responsible for the library's operation, reporting to the library board through me.

The primary difference is that the library is now allied more closely with the city administration and can draw on the expertise and resources of the city's personnel: legal, finance, building maintenance, computer services and engineering departments. Significant savings have resulted since the city extended these services to the library, including building and grounds maintenance, accounting, labour relations, benefits administration, systems support and education. At the same time the decision-making process has been streamlined.

In accordance with the Carver model, the Chatham Public Library board is responsible for the setting of policy and a direction for the library, but relies on me along with the director and her staff to manage the operation. Costly duplication has been eliminated in administrative support in areas such as accounting and labour relations, freeing up funds for what really matters: services, equipment and materials for the public.

The Chatham Public Library is once again open 60 hours per week. Virtually all lost services have been restored, the entire library operation has been automated and our Internet centre, with six public workstations, opened last July. We've introduced compact discs, CD-ROMS and books on tape. There has been an influx of new equipment and our 30-year-old building will be updated later this year. All of this has been accomplished on a flat-line budget; no increases in the last four years.

I've mentioned that our successful administrative restructuring took place despite, not because of, the current Public Libraries Act. Rather than enabling, that legislation is disabling with too many prescriptive clauses which limit innovation and discourage local solutions.

1610

We support the steps taken in the proposed legislation to minimize restrictions on the appointment and attendance of library board members and particularly on the frequency of library board meetings. We've found that since we've been operating under the Carver model agendas have lightened considerably and meetings are shorter and much more amicable. On occasion, our board has held a meeting simply to meet the terms of the legislation. There's nothing more frustrating for busy people than to hold a meeting just for the sake of meeting.

I'm not saying that under the new legislation the Chatham city council would rush to change the size or composition of the board or that they or the board would significantly reduce the number of meetings held annually. I'm simply saying that we appreciate being given the latitude to appoint and to meet as dictated by local requirements.

With respect to user fees, Chatham Public Library is reluctant at the present time to implement them, but we also recognize that very soon the new financial realities may necessitate them. We've all heard that Ontario's public libraries have been free for generations, but we all know that there is no such thing as a free lunch.

Clause 14 of Bill 109 gives boards the right to charge fees for public library services, but I understand that general membership fees are precluded by this regulation under the Municipal Act, prohibiting fees for borrowing print materials. This ties libraries' hands unnecessarily and flies in the face of survey results which indicate support as high as 70% in some communities for general membership fees in order to preserve library services.

A piecemeal system with user fees for some library services and not for others is confusing for patrons and time-consuming for the staff, and given that the bulk of library circulation transactions still involve print materials, such an approach will not generate the funds required to offset the loss of provincial grant moneys. Libraries need the flexibility to make the user fee decision appropriate to their community and any limitation on that right is unwelcome.

In conclusion, the Chatham Public Library board supports those aspects of Bill 109 which increase the flexibility with which municipalities provide and manage library services. We consider our non-traditional library governance structure to be a good example of the imaginative and effective solutions that can result. We would all be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Mr Young: Thank you very much for your presentation. It gives a lot of facts and detail. But I'd like to ask you something on a related issue we've heard about a number of times throughout the hearings, and that's intellectual property. There are a lot of people who were skirting the issue, I think, in the hearings. They're worried about municipal officials interfering in their choice of books or they're worried about some minority community group taking over the library board or through the council, forcing them to get rid of books like Huckleberry Finn because it has racist language, or Catcher in the Rye, because they feel it's important literature, etc. We think these decisions should be made locally with accountability, that it's not a matter of censorship but a matter of choice.

I have a concern. I recently visited Project P, which is the OPP task force on pornography, and I saw a number of things which I wouldn't describe in mixed company, very ugly things. One of the things I saw was NAMBLA magazine, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. It has pictures of choirboys and it has articles on how to seduce them. It's really awful, awful stuff. If there was a library board that wanted to buy such a magazine and supply it, what would happen in a board that had some municipal accountability like yours?

Mr Thomas: In our board, with respect to the relationship with council, the board makes all of those operational decisions.

Mr Young: Mr Martin's party does not believe in any censorship at all, so they would think that's perfectly all right. They've been after me because I'm saying such a decision should be made locally. Do you agree with local accountability?

Mr Thomas: Yes, I do.

Mr Martin: Excuse me. On a point of order --

The Chair: Just a second, please, Mr Young. Order.

Mr Young: Am I still on my time?

The Chair: Yes, you are, but I can interrupt you at any time I want as Chair. I understand what the point of order coming up is and I think that should be withdrawn. I don't necessarily think that's true. You've imputed and said something that isn't necessarily true.

Mr Martin: I can speak --

Mr Young: No, wait a sec. In the House, the NDP spoke and Bud Wildman spoke a couple of weeks ago about the fact that they didn't approve of any censorship, and Mr Martin was criticizing me personally yesterday saying that I was censoring, quoting out of the Globe and Mail --

The Chair: Right, but every individual in that party may have a different view and you said "that party doesn't think," and I don't think that's fair.

Mr Young: They don't support censorship.

The Chair: You could have said Mr Wildman made a comment in the House or something, but to say every party doesn't support something --

Mr Young: Well, based on comments Mr Wildman made in the House and Mr Martin made in committee yesterday, they don't support any censorship. That's the clear impression I got.

Mr Martin: If you want to get into a debate around censorship, we can.

The Chair: And we won't, because we're not here to have that debate.

Mr Young: This is not an issue of censorship. I'm trying to tell Mr Martin, it's not an issue of censorship, it's an issue of community choice and accountability.

The Chair: We're not here to have that debate.

Mr Young: So if I can please have the floor again.

The Chair: You have about 30 seconds left because I interrupted.

Mr Young: If they wanted to choose a publication like that, and there is municipal accountability, what would happen?

Mr Thomas: The book would be purchased by the board, by the staff, and if there was an issue in the community, that would come back to the local board.

Mr Young: How would that happen?

Mr Thomas: How would that happen? By complaint. We've never had it happen.

Mr Young: Through elected officials?

Mr Thomas: Elected officials ultimately.

Mr Young: It happened in my riding. It happened with an inaccurate and sensationalist, ghoulish book about Paul Bernardo, because one of his victims lived in Burlington. The family begged them to take it off the list, not make it available -- anybody can buy it at the corner store for five bucks -- and they refused. They shook their heads, they said no. That family had nowhere to appeal and nowhere to go.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Young, we're at the end of your time.

Mr Gravelle: I think the point you were making was that the library board makes the decisions in terms of those issues. You have a board in place?

Mr Thomas: Yes, we do.

Mr Gravelle: You have a board in place that makes those decisions, and I take it that the board system works very much the way it is. Obviously you deserve some congratulations. You've done some remarkable things with the library and that's tremendous. But you do work within the board function and you obviously work successfully within the board governance model now. I realize what you're saying very clearly, but having said that, you're not saying it hasn't worked. This is a board structure that actually you work quite well with.

Mr Thomas: We're saying it has worked in spite of it.

Mr Gravelle: I'm curious, if I may ask you, just what are some of the other examples? The one you used as an example was you held meetings that you didn't really need to hold because of the regulations, but what other impediments are there? It does strike me that what you're talking about is that having the board structure in place is useful, and I would presume that you would -- I shouldn't presume, I should ask you. Would you maintain a library board structure if you didn't have to?

Mr Thomas: If we didn't have to, I'm sure it would be a committee of council. We have a number of services that are provided by the community and there's no legislative requirement to have public boards or public committees. But the council has chosen to do that and I believe councils would do that because councils are interested in the special interest groups that may be in a municipality with respect to the service that's being delivered. Ultimately the council's responsible.

Mr Gravelle: Can you accept at all the argument or the case that's being made that with increased pressures that are coming up on municipalities and having to make some decisions to basically have funding demands, whether it's pothole repairs, which is a big issue, or seniors' housing or it's libraries, that putting this basically all into the hands of the municipality puts them in a very difficult position and makes it very difficult, and there should be still some provincial involvement, perhaps even in terms of provincial grants? Do you accept any of that as being a legitimate concern that you would have?

Mr Thomas: That the province should continue to fund?

Mr Gravelle: The first part was just the sort of differing demands in terms of what councils have to do and that certainly it puts pressure on -- you're going to have constituents calling you saying, "I want that pothole fixed," and maybe not being as concerned about another issue. Those are the kinds of demands that councillors are under all the time.

Mr Thomas: This is one of the reasons why I feel that councillors should be involved, because they have the broader perspective of the needs of the community. Boards and commissions all suffer from a common municipal disease called siloitis and they do not see the broader needs of the community. I think that's an element I've been able to bring to our library board, that they are able to see what the council is faced with in terms of the competing demands for services within a community and it helps them to understand in their decision-making process to help provide for tradeoffs that are going to have to take place with our lack of funding.

1620

Mr Martin: I have to say, as others have, that I'm impressed with the work that you and your library board and your council have done to come to terms with the reality that we find ourselves under. I suggest you're going to have more work to do as the present onslaught takes hold.

Just a couple of points, though: One is, this was all done under the present legislative realm. You said there were some roadblocks in it, some hurdles you had to get over, but some people call those checks and balances. Some people call them places where you stop and assess where you've been and what you've done and that kind of thing.

There are some library boards out there, and we've had many of them in front of us today and yesterday, that suggest a bit of fear and anxiety in facing the financial crunch that we are in today and the need of councils to become a lot more direct and involved in those decisions. For example, we know of a board up in Ignace that is going to lose its library. Over the last short few years, volunteers in the community, charitable dollars, the provincial government built a brand-new library, a beautiful facility. The mayor has now indicated that once this new legislation goes through he's going to take the books out of there, turn them over to the schools and turn that new building into a municipal office. It's an extreme example. I think you're on one side; they're on another.

Through this legislation and considering some of the recommendations you've made to remove any check and balance out of there whatsoever that boards might have to the power of council to just come in and take over, how do you give them any comfort that this isn't what's going to happen and that it won't be as cooperative as the experience you've had.

Mr Thomas: I guess it's going to depend on the circumstances in each municipality, but generally in Ontario large urban municipalities do have a number of advisory boards and committees to give council advice prior to making a decision. Ultimately the decision is council's decision and council is the one that's held accountable to the public. They are the elected people.

When we went through the devastating effects in 1991 when the budgets were being reduced, the public didn't come and complain to the library board; the public came directly to council and council was put on the spot then to try to resolve some of the internal workings to come up with efficiencies to offset the cuts that had taken place. I think it was at that point the board realized that they would be better off to have a broader base of knowledge and cooperate more with existing facilities and resources that are available in a community instead of duplicating them, to cut costs and maintain service, and we demonstrated that can be done.

So I think there's fear, and obviously any time there's any change there are all kinds of bogey men come out of the woodwork to say this will happen and that will happen. In the final event, the councils are accountable, the councils are responsible, and I think they will act in a responsible manner.

I've heard over the years that if you take the grants away from the highways, they're going to spend all the money on swimming pools. Well, in fact that hasn't taken place. I think we have to realize that municipal councillors are responsible people and they are accountable to the public, and how they choose to manage their various resources within the community should be left up to that local council to determine that.

The Chair: At that point, you've gone a little bit beyond your allotted time. I want to thank you for coming forward and making your presentation to us today.

WINDSOR PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Chair: Would Steve Salmons and Marilyn Scase please come forward. Good afternoon. Welcome to the committee.

Mr Barry Fowler: Good afternoon. My name is Barry Fowler; I'm the chair of the Windsor Public Library board. I'm joined by Steve Salmons, our acting CEO, and Marilyn Scase, our director of central library services. We recognize that our presentation is at the end of the day after many, many speeches over the last couple of days, so we thought the timing would be appropriate to introduce a few amendments:

"Therefore, despite subsection (1), no regulations affecting the residents of Abbot Street will come into affect unless the minister provides 30 days notice to those residents."

"Abbotsford, Acadia, Adanac."

Mr Martin: All those in favour say "aye."

The Chair: Nay, nay, nay.

Mr Fowler: Really, when we speak of amendments, we believe only a few are required; which ones depend upon what the true intent of this change to the legislation is.

Is your intent to encourage entrepreneurial activity within libraries? At Windsor Public Library we have a wood carvers museum in our main branch from which we receive rental income; we have an Internet cafe where we receive a percentage of gross sales; and we have instituted fee-for-service research. Each of these was accomplished under the existing act.

Is your intent to encourage libraries to seek community partnerships with other public and private agencies? We have partnered with the Essex Region Conservation Authority to share a curator for museum services. We have partnered with our police services board and board of education to establish a library, community police station and elementary school in one building to save taxpayers money, so there you can hit the books, get booked or get a book. We have partnered with our university, community college and hospitals to create the WEDNet consortium which will establish a fibrelink communications connection to the world. We accomplished each of these under the existing legislation.

Is your intent to promote greater resource sharing with the municipality? We currently provide heritage services and a municipal archives for our city. We share legal, automation, some human resource, finance and transportation services. We did all of this under the current legislation.

Or frankly, is it your intent to simply withdraw provincial funding under the guise of local control? Should you not amend the name of this legislation to the Local Funding of Public Libraries Act, 1997? If your intent is truly local control, then why have a Public Libraries Act at all? Under Bill 26 you already allow municipalities to provide library services and impose whatever schedule of fees they want. However, the imposition of those fees results in the loss of provincial funding. Under Bill 109 and purported draft regulations to the Municipal Act, you seek to prevent the imposition of certain fees by your sheer will alone, as there would be no funding to withdraw. So if your intent is local control, scrap the Public Libraries Act altogether and let municipalities set all of their own rules.

We believe you've not put forward the legislation that way because that is not your intent. You recognize that there is a role for the province to play, but money is tight. However, if you want to play, you have to pay. We also believe there is a role for the province to play and pay. The province should ensure that library boards are maintained with a minimum of five members and a minimum of 40% citizen content; that the province should develop uniform goals and standards for library services; that the province should establish benchmarks of excellence and financially reward those libraries that achieve them; and finally, that the province should define core services throughout Ontario in consultation with the library community.

In summary, we believe you should say what you mean and mean what you say. If you mean local control, then give the municipalities full local control. If you believe the province has any role, recognize the price of admission. We want a province that supports excellence in library services and that financially supports these initiatives, and we at the Windsor Public Library wish to support the government in these directions. In keeping with the theme of the new act, copies of my speech are available by sending $2 and a self-addressed envelope to the Windsor Public Library.

1630

Mr Gravelle: Good afternoon. That was a great presentation and it really woke us up. It got us back into the spirit of things. You've done some pretty amazing things at the Windsor Public Library. It's remarkable, and you have done it, as you said, under the present legislation.

I think you've made a really valid point here in terms of what this is really all about. What is the intent of the legislation? It's probably pretty clear that it's a way to get out of provincial funding on the operational basis, one of the methods. You're right, and I think probably the minister herself would talk about the fact that a great deal of this is a compromise. Obviously those of us in opposition -- I can certainly speak for those in the Liberal caucus -- have some great concerns about the withdrawal of provincial funding, the whole question of citizen involvement on boards. I'm glad to hear you still think that has great value.

The whole issue of core services is interesting. This is the second time we've heard the thought that actually there should be some consultation on what core services are. I'm presuming, and you can maybe amplify this, that you're talking about the fact that they've made a decision that it's print material, and that you think this should be open for discussion and that indeed, if it's going to be done in the proper fashion, there should be consultation. How do you see this consultation happening? I think it's a good idea. How do you see it happening and what can you suggest in terms of bringing that forward?

Mr Fowler: As I understand it, our board has tossed around the idea about the imposition of local membership fees or card fees. As we read the act, it's a fine line but there's nothing that specifically states that you can't charge for a card fee, just that you can't charge to borrow. So we could only lend to those people who have a card, and the card comes with a fee.

We have seen in correspondence from the minister that that would be shut down through a draft Municipal Act regulation. We think that the imposition of these draft municipal regulations to further define or tighten up the act would be the proper forum in which to have that type of discussion.

Mr Gravelle: I must admit I was presuming that you were talking about core service in terms of what services should be, free and not free as well.

Mr Fowler: Absolutely.

Mr Gravelle: That's really important because, to tell you the truth, I do think that in some ways this is a setup. A Municipal Act regulation is a regulation and you can do a one-two step pretty easily in this process. People can say I'm cynical, but I think that's what this is being set up to do.

In terms of the consultation with the libraries, though, a lot of it was cut off. The Crombie commission didn't consult anybody. It made some nice, grand statements. Consulting with the libraries, particularly because there are a lot of different points of view out there, strikes me as a good idea. If you can bring forward your ideas of how that consultation process can be done, I'm sure it would be appreciated by the Ontario Library Association and a bunch of others, because I think there needs to be more consultation, not just this top-down stuff.

Mr Martin: You've obviously, as Mr Gravelle has said, done some really interesting and innovative things to rise to the occasion, the challenge of the dwindling dollar that's out there, and, as Mr Gravelle said, you've done it under the present legislation. The previous group that was here, in spite of the challenges they face because of the legislation, have also done some innovative things in partnership with their community to save services and move this agenda ahead.

It seems the question is coming down in some ways to a question of who can be more accountable, who can be more responsible? The government is suggesting that appointed library boards are not accountable, they are not responsible. They are at arm's length so they can do things without having to consider I don't know what. On the other hand, municipal government is accountable, is responsible and, because of that, we have this shift now through this legislation to more power and more control by municipal councils. What's your sense of that? Who is more accountable, who is more responsible and how does that fall for you?

Mr Fowler: My understanding is that library boards are appointed by their municipal councils so the accountability factor I believe extends from there. Our position is that we believe there should be a minimum of five people on any library board of which only 40% would have to be citizens. The five scenario would allow for a majority of councillors to be appointed to the library board and to swing the vote, if you will, if they choose.

Conversely, in keeping with the theme of the government's position, if they chose only to appoint one or none, they would be free to do so. But we think it's important that they have that flexibility because after all, especially after this act is passed, our municipality will be funding 93% of our budget whereas currently they fund somewhere in the 85% to 86% range.

I don't believe that one is better than the other in terms of accountability, but I certainly recognize that there is accountability in the electoral process within the municipalities. Therefore I think it's important that the flexibility remain within the municipal councils but that it be tightened up somewhat from where it is right now in the draft legislation.

Mrs Munro: I certainly appreciated hearing some of the ideas that you've been able to put forward that clearly demonstrate a leadership role under the legislation as it stands. You raised the issue of what the province's role is. I wondered if you would care to comment on the identified provincial role in terms of supporting a framework across the province. Currently, of course, that tends to concentrate on the interlibrary loan system, but we know that it also then is going to be much more technologically updated and provide a kind of access that certainly up to now hasn't been there to the same extent. I just wondered if you'd comment on that as part of the province's role.

Mr Fowler: Absolutely. In terms of the interlibrary loan network, we have imposed fees to other libraries that wish to borrow from our library. We identified the amount of staff time that was involved in processing these, and after the imposition of fees, where before we were on a four-to-one basis in terms of what we lent versus what we borrowed, that has come down to more of a one-to-one ratio. We found that most of the requests were coming from smaller rural libraries. We believe that if the province continues in this vein and they do not want to see the imposition of fees in that regard, then they should be willing to come forward with some compensation to the net contributors to the system to fund them for their staffing costs.

Mr Skarica: I have my $2 here for a copy of your excellent presentation. I'm really intrigued by your presentation and the Chatham Public Library because it seems you've already taken many steps in achieving partnerships. Can you tell us how in your particular instance that came about? Was there a fiscal problem that you had in the 1990s? Just how did that come about?

Mr Fowler: The city of Windsor went through an exhaustive 15- to 18-month process of coming up with the community strategic plan. At the same time that they instituted theirs, we instituted our own at the Windsor Public Library. Interestingly, the theme of partnerships was identified as a major tenet in each of those plans, albeit independently. Therefore that has been our focus, even to the extent of talking with our neighbours in the county about how we can share administrative services for the benefit of all.

Mr Skarica: I just want to compliment you. It's very innovative and refreshing to hear your presentation.

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

1640

ONTARIO SCHOOL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION

The Chair: Would Reg Deneau please come forward. Good afternoon, sir, and welcome to the committee.

Mr Reg Deneau: On behalf of the Ontario School Library Association, I want to thank you for making these opportunities available across the province for input of individual citizens and others.

My presentation is slightly different in that I am focusing on people who do not pay taxes, people who do not vote on any legislation at the present time, who really don't have a direct voice in any legislation, and that is kids.

I'm a secondary school teacher-librarian and my school board's appointee to the Windsor Public Library board. I am present as president of the Ontario School Library Association to specifically address concerns for school-age Ontarians, the K-to-12 population.

The Ministry of Education and Training draft document Information Literacy and Equitable Access provides a rationale for re-evaluating and altering our institutions. It states:

"Ontario is experiencing dramatic social transformations. The racial and ethnocultural diversity of our population is rapidly increasing and many of our society's long-held beliefs and institutions are being re-evaluated and altered.

"At the same time, advances in computer telecommunications and technology are transforming our economy from one based on manufacturing to one based on information. Futurists say we are rapidly becoming an `information society' -- a society in which the abilities to find, evaluate and use information are essential to personal satisfaction, economic success and participation in our social and democratic processes."

Section 2 of the act identifies the purposes. While as an educator I am personally concerned about how and when these stated objectives will be deemed to have been met, there need to be specific regulations supporting those purposes.

Information needs must be provided in an appropriate and timely manner, responsive to community and individual needs, without barriers and founded on principles of equity of access and intellectual freedom.

In One Place to Look: Ontario Public Library Strategic Plan, co-sponsored by the Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications and the Ontario Library Association, equity of access as it relates to public libraries was addressed:

"Small Ontario communities often have very limited bases from which to develop and support public library services...size of community constitutes a serious barrier to equity of access to public library service in Ontario....

"Small public libraries, those serving a population of 5,000 or less, constitute nearly half of the public libraries in the province and provide service to over 400,000 Ontarians."

In many of these smaller communities, northern communities or perhaps native communities, the public library is the only library facility available for the school-age population who are following similar curricula, completing similar assignments and independent studies as their urban counterparts.

Information Literacy and Equitable Access addressed the equitable access issue as it relates to schools:

"The Ministry of Education and Training is committed to providing all students in Ontario with equal opportunities to achieve their potential and recognizes that access to information, information technology and information literacy instruction is fundamental to meeting that commitment."

Later in the same document the issue for individuals and society is addressed. "Equity of access to information, information skills and information technology is crucial...."

If there are no school library information centres, the onus is on the public libraries to provide the resources and programs needed by the school-age population. This leads to a discussion of funding and standards which I will address later.

Section 10 states that a board may make rules imposing fines for breaches of the rules. If overdue fines are deemed to be part of the rules, how will this be enforced on children? Should children and seniors on fixed incomes be subject to the same fines as all other patrons? Will parents be billed in the future for their children's fines? We want our children to grow up to be responsible adults. The reality is that many children and adults stop going to the public library because of the excessive fines they now incur in some municipalities.

Another reality is that in 1994 one in five children under 18 lived in families below Statistics Canada's low-income cutoff; 24% of children under age 12 live in low-income families; 86% of lone-parent families are headed by a mother; 30% of lone mothers have incomes $1,000 to $9,999 below the low-income cutoff; in 1994, one in six children under age 12, 681,000 of them, lived in lone-mother families; six in 10 female lone-parent families were below the poverty level in 1991; in 1995 there were 1.5 million poor children; in 1994, 12% of families had at least one parent unemployed for more than six months of the year.

Who will monitor the rules that boards set? Will there be exceptions for children? Who decides? How will children of the parents I've just described afford fines or the possible fees referred to in the following section?

The Ontario Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation regulation to amend Ontario regulation 26/96 made under the Municipal Act states:

"A municipality or local board does not have the power under section 220.1 of the act to impose fees or charge for...(b) use by the public of its libraries' `collections' in the library."

Where is the definition of "collection"? The Fact Sheet: Local Control of Public Libraries 1997 uses the word "resources." In correspondence with the Ontario Library Association, it is stated that the word "collections" was intended to mean "materials," as found in the Public Libraries Act.

How does this apply to CD-ROM, videocassettes, audiocassettes, book and cassette combinations, online databases and the Internet? All of these are being used by our school-age population on an increasing basis.

If only print materials are considered part of the core service, what will be the impact on children who are visual or aural learners? Many resources are no longer available in print, only electronic.

Does this mean the school-age population will have to pay a fee for borrowing the abovementioned materials? Fees for electronic references would be a barrier to access to information for children, especially those of low-income families. Are we going to create a society of people who can afford access to different resources and people who can only use some materials, based on their income levels?

The debate regarding user-pay services is recognized as divisive within the library community. Format must not limit accessibility. The imposition of user fees to recover the costs of investment in new technology threatens to undermine the right of all Ontarians to access information and knowledge so necessary in a modern society.

Phasing out operating grants and removing the responsibility for funding education at the municipal level is supposed to give local authorities greater financial flexibility to fund other services, including libraries. This again raises the issue of equity of access and standards of public library service.

School library information centres, as noted earlier, are concerned about equitable access as well as standards. Ontarians of all ages deserve equity of access; they also expect certain standards of library service, be it in their schools or public libraries. Allowing individual municipalities sole funding responsibilities for public libraries will lead to inequities and various standards, depending on their perceived priorities. "Do we build new roads or improve the public library system? Potholes or pathways to information?" As stated earlier, small communities often have limited databases from which to develop and support public libraries. Some public libraries will undoubtedly close, leaving students with no access to resources in areas where school libraries have already been closed.

Recommendation 15.2 of One Place to Look called for standards, providing libraries at various levels of development with performance targets on a scale of achievement from acceptable to excellent. Provincial standards of service must be clearly stated to encourage public libraries to work towards equity of access.

Recommendation 15.4 noted that in 1986 the Ontario government established a special $50-million excellence fund for universities. One of the stated purposes of this fund was to improve university library collections, which were not keeping up with demand because of extraordinary increases in the cost of books and periodicals.

Public libraries in large metropolitan areas are scrambling to provide the resources demanded and needed by the public in light of already reduced grants. They find themselves in the same predicament as did the university libraries in 1986. This is more alarming in smaller communities. Libraries are forming partnerships among other types of libraries, with other public and non-profit organizations, and with the private sector. This is true in schools as well. The question is, do we want public libraries at the mercy of a corporate partner with an unknown agenda?

In addressing such partnerships, information literacy and equitable access, note that building partnerships among ministries, schools, institutions of higher learning, public libraries and other information sources means we will have the financial and technical means to provide all students in Ontario with the opportunity to share in the benefits of an information society.

Section 10 of the act would be strengthened by replacing the word "may" with the word "shall" to encourage co-operation with other publicly funded libraries.

In addition to the aforementioned concerns, we are concerned about programs developed by public libraries which address literacy needs of the parents of school-aged children, some of whom are recent immigrants learning English as a second language. Adult literacy impacts children. In one board, the seeds for a new combined school-public library were sown by concerns of the public library staff and the social services department, as well as the board of education, over the literacy levels of segments of the community. These programs are contingent on grants from various sources. If the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation phases out grants to public libraries, can the Ministry of Education and Training be expected to continue grants such as the Ontario community literacy allocation? Who will pick up the responsibility for funding these programs?

The Ontario School Library Association is concerned about the impact of the act on our school-age population. Changes to this act, like the changes being proposed to the Education Act, will have long-term effects on the lifelong opportunities of our students. The Ministry of Education and Training is proposing that school libraries are not an integral part of the education system and therefore are subject to expenditure cuts. Now the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation is proposing significant changes to the public library system just when public libraries are most needed. Ontarians want to know if libraries, both school and public, will survive these unprecedented attacks on their knowledge network.

1650

The following actions need to be considered:

Expand the purposes of the act to include how information needs will be addressed. Needs should be addressed in an appropriate and timely manner, responsible to community and individual needs, specifically founded on principles of equity of access and intellectual freedom and without barriers.

Put some limitations in the regulations which would allow provincial monitoring of fines, rules, standards and fees. Consider the impact on low-income households of uncontrolled fines, rules and fees for other than core services. Develop a provincial definition of "core service" and/or "collections" which reflects the realities of the types of resources available in our public libraries, specifically CD-ROM, audio and videocassettes, electronic references etc.

Establish some basal conditional provincial grants which encourage public library boards and municipal bodies to adhere to provincial standards of public library service. If provincial grants are phased out, leaving the municipalities to set library budgets with no specific criteria, public libraries could wither and die, thus removing the only source for students. Ontarians should expect a high level of library service. The success of a province-wide library network can only be as strong as the links on that network.

Marilyn Mushinski, Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, in addressing the Ontario Library Association's 1997 superconference on February 7, stated, "There is no doubt that our library system is one of Ontario's greatest cultural and economic assets." She went on to state: "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. Learning has been accepted as a life-long process, and it's clear that our libraries have a central role to play in this pursuit."

If it is clear that our libraries have this central role, this act has muddied the waters for public libraries. This is not a vision for the future. This legislation is not in the best interest of Ontarians.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We only have a minute and a half for questioning. In rotation, it's the government caucus.

Mr Skarica: I've been involved in the school board hearings and I've visited many schools in the province. One of the major problems with our school system that I've seen is the fact that spending is done not on need but on the resources of the community, and I've been in communities where the school libraries are virtually empty. May I suggest to you that it would make a lot of sense to even out the funding for schools so that those schools that have virtually nothing in their libraries can fully stock them.

In my opinion, and you can give me your opinion, kids who are disadvantaged, who don't have access to a lot of material, are a lot better off having it right in the school than in any other place, where they'd be encouraged to use it and that type of thing.

Mr Deneau: I think there's a continuity problem here. Basically, I agree with you that meeting the needs in the school is where we want it, but at 4 o'clock in the afternoon when your son comes home and has a little project to do, he can't get to the school library to do that project. On a Saturday afternoon, when you need to access the Internet to find some information on mammals, he's not at school. We have to look at the total picture. This doesn't only apply to kids; it applies to adult and seniors as well.

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

WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE PUBLIC LIBRARY

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

Mr Mark Dewar: Good day, ladies and gentlemen of the committee. My name is Mark Dewar, and with me today is our CEO of the public library, Marilyn Ferguson.

I have come to speak to you today as both a Whitchurch-Stouffville public library board member and an eight-year resident of Whitchurch-Stouffville.

The changes that are presently being proposed through Bill 109 have made our board and the community aware of the crippling effects these changes could have on us as a small library. It is these effects that today I would like to address. These effects fall into two categories: core services and voluntarism.

It is sad that the new Bill 109 takes away the feeling of ownership from our community. By giving our municipal council, some of whom don't even possess library cards, full control over the library, we lose several things: a buffer zone between council and the general public, and the voluntarism that your government has so recently supported in a published paper.

We not only endorse but fully support the 10 first principles of voluntary action, as outlined in the Report of the Advisory Board on the Voluntary Sector, which also states: "Of great importance is the recognition that the local community is the basis for voluntary action and that a healthy and economically strong community includes a robust voluntary sector."

Voluntarism is the basis of library services in Ontario today. It is our opinion that this voluntarism should be nurtured and allowed to flourish. It is these volunteers who will be relied upon for further fund-raising to offset present and future funding cuts. If these volunteers don't have a feeling of ownership, on whom do we rely to assist our already over-taxed staff?

When it comes to a buffer zone between council and the general public, who is better for that job: a dedicated volunteer, or a council who already sit through numerous meetings and committees every month and who would have yet another responsibility thrust upon them? Would it not be better to leave such sensitive issues as censorship to people who do not have electoral responsibility every three years?

This now leads me to the question of core services, as outlined in subsections 2(1), (2) and (3) and section 14 of Bill 109. As we approach the year 2000, the definition of library services is changing drastically. More and more computer and digital information is becoming widespread in our present-day idea of library services.

Most people now see libraries as the entrance to our information superhighway. Our thinking should be focused towards this point, not a Luddite-based, information supercul-de-sac. We should be focusing on a system that promotes information on an equal access basis without creating a two-tiered have and have-not system.

As the Toronto Globe and Mail stated in an article dated Saturday, March 1, 1997, "Amid such funding pressures, public libraries are evolving into something closer to a self-serve blockbuster outlet with computer terminals."

We believe that your focus on books as a primary core service is only part of the scope, which should be widened to include other formats. It is our responsibility as libraries to provide all educational, cultural and recreational materials to citizens of our community. It is further our belief that these services should be provided from the tax base and that no user fees should be applied.

It would not do our library system justice to change or implement new plans and/or legislation that would fundamentally change what we provide today. The library system has grown and flourished in the last 20 years almost as fast as technology has grown. The people involved in the system over that time frame have assisted, nurtured and protected that system to allow it to become what it is today.

I think now is the time to give the people of Ontario more voice and allow them to make the decisions that will affect them into the second millennium. We must plan now for the provision of library services for our children's children. By putting into effect positive legislation, many generations to come will be able to enjoy library services as we have come to know and enjoy them.

I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak on behalf of the Whitchurch-Stouffville public library board today. I'll be happy to entertain any questions that you may have.

1700

Mrs Munro: As people who come from my riding, I'm most impressed that you were able to come this distance and make your presentation today. Of course, I also have to make a special comment on your inclusion of the excerpts from the voluntary sector report, as the person who was responsible for heading that initiative.

There are a couple of questions you've raised that I think are really important. During the course of the hearings, we've seen and heard excellent examples of the kind of relationship between councils and library boards which sound to me like the ideal opportunity for community involvement and leadership from the council. My question is that you identified perhaps those members on council who might not own a library card. To me, that's the best argument for saying that therefore they're going to want the additional voice of those committed community members to take that kind of leadership role in the community, recognizing that it is in the best interests of the community. Certainly there are many examples of people who have come here today and yesterday who speak to that issue.

I'm just wondering if you see this as an opportunity for that kind of leadership within the community.

Mr Dewar: Our council presently has not committed one way or the other as to what sort of board they're going to be looking at in the future, once the legislation is enacted. It is my opinion that the system, as it stands now, not only supports but focuses on some of the volunteerism that we so desperately need within our system in Whitchurch-Stouffville.

When you hear about censorship, and Mr Young I believe spoke about it a little earlier, I can't emphasize enough that I think it should be left up to somebody who is dedicated solely to the library and to that collection instead of somebody -- present company excepted of course -- who has electoral responsibility. I don't think that sort of pressure should be put on somebody who has to speak to the people once every three years or five years, or whatever it might be, and get re-elected. Personally, at least in our system, I don't want to see that sort of pressure put on a council and it might in actuality be the wrong decision.

Mrs Munro: Obviously that whole issue has been debated for some time. The other question that I wanted to ask you is again related specifically to the issue that you raised, and that is the question of user fees and core service. My question is quite simply, in your view, is there a place for any fees?

Mr Dewar: In my opinion, yes. Recently we implemented what we call a non-resident fee for people from outside of the municipality using our facility. I can see that sort of user fee being implemented and being used because the funding's not in essence then actually coming from our local tax base.

When it comes to user fees of any other sort, when it comes to reference material, books, CDs, videos, audiocassettes, that sort of thing, our opinion, as far as I'm aware from my other board members but my opinion in particular, is that there's no place for them within the library because you don't want to create that two-tiered system.

Mrs Munro: But there's a lot of evidence that has been provided that allows for new technology and the way in which it could be used. I guess my question comes, for instance, from the idea of a child who comes in and asks the librarian where they find the material on turtles and then you'll have someone who might be using the library research facility who's doing this as a businessperson. Is there a difference here? Should we be making a difference in that kind of use?

Mr Dewar: Again in my opinion, no. You start looking at then having to create a system where you decide who is and who shouldn't be. People are already in essence paying for that system and I don't think that a user fee, other than a non-resident fee, like I said, for example, is actually a good idea.

The Chair: Mr Gravelle, Mr Martin has allotted his time. I appreciate that, Mr Martin.

Mr Gravelle: Thanks, Mr Dewar and Ms Ferguson. Certainly the issue of the citizen involvement on boards is an important one. It's come up consistently and it's one that we'll all be struggling with on the committee, and it's much appreciated. I don't know if you were here for Mr Thomas's presentation from Chatham earlier in the day, but he'll tell you how it can work. Although he's saying that we shouldn't have them, he's managed to make it work.

The concern that I have, having listened to a lot of presentations, is that in some places it might work, in some places it wouldn't. I think that is what sets up the "patchwork," the term we've been using, which I think is going to hurt the library system across the province, and that's what we don't want to do.

Your using the volunteerism concept that the government has put out there as an example was very helpful too, because on the one hand they're sort of saying, "This is what we believe," and on the other hand they're actually making it more difficult to do it. I'm just wondering whether or not you find it at least somewhat strange that they would be on the one hand promoting volunteerism and on the other hand setting up a situation where they're going to really be taking it away.

Mr Dewar: As I said in my speech, and I'll stand by it for quite a while, volunteerism, at least in our system -- I'm not going to speak towards any other system, but within our library itself -- is a core function. It's been there for years. It has allowed us to fund-raise a lot to offset some of our funding cuts. I again can't speak enough to the fact that that ownership or that volunteerism from the community is a necessary part of our community.

Coming back to the patchwork that you spoke of, I'd have to agree with you. I don't think it's going to be the same in every community. I'm not ready yet to decide what it's going to be like in our community, or at least to comment on it.

Mr Gravelle: Even your own community you're not sure of yet. That's what's fascinating.

Mr Dewar: Yes. But by the same token, I'd like to see the system remain the way it is now. It's functioned well.

Mr Gravelle: It works.

Mr Dewar: It has accountability and it functions fairly reasonably within the system that it's set up in. To change it to one that is council-based takes away some of that accountability, in my opinion, and focuses it more on, like I said earlier, that electoral responsibility.

Mr Gravelle: You've obviously read the legislation pretty carefully. I think it's fairly clear that it comes down to the fact that the province is removing provincial funding and feeling they have to obviously therefore, because of the pressure it's putting on municipalities, put them in a position where they can do this.

I guess what offends me to some degree is that they're trying to find this middle ground that truly I don't believe is middle ground. I think in a lot of cases it's just going to be perhaps complicating it for councils, but setting it up so they don't have to have library boards, so they're not really library boards. Quite frankly -- somebody earlier said it as well -- have it one way or the other, at least be honest about it, instead of this situation which is clearly a setup for something else to happen. I would encourage the government to do that.

The Chair: Thank you both for coming in and making a presentation to the committee today.

TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE

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

Mr Michael Garvey: Good afternoon, Mr Chairman, committee members and other attendees. You should have before you a package that I've put together, and if you turn to tab 2 of that package, you'll find the submissions that I'm about to make to you in written form. The other documents within the package I'll be referring to. They are primarily background documents and, as well, some suggested amendments to the legislation.

I'm here before you on behalf of the corporation of the town of Huntsville. There is a lengthy history of library service within the town of Huntsville, as library services were first established over a century ago, in 1880, one year prior to the incorporation of the village of Huntsville.

With regard to the existing Huntsville Public Library board, it was established 25 years ago, in 1971, through the passage of a town bylaw. It is significant to note, and I'll elaborate on this shortly, that the statutory authority for the 1971 bylaw was not the Public Libraries Act as it existed then, but rather the District Municipality of Muskoka Act of 1970, which was followed by an order in council. Notwithstanding the means through which the library board was created, it was made subject to the provisions of the Public Libraries Act as it existed at that time.

Just by way of further background, Huntsville is the most populous of the six area municipalities which make up the district of Muskoka. It has a full-time population of approximately 18,000, which is approximately 35% of the entire district's population. However, as I'm sure most of you know, Huntsville is situated in one of the most popular vacation and holiday destinations within the province. Having a considerable amount of seasonal, residential and resort development, the summertime population of Huntsville does swell and is considerably higher than the permanent population and, not surprisingly, increases the demands that are placed upon the library services that are provided.

In this regard, I would note that with a permanent population of 18,000, there are approximately 11,000 library memberships with the Huntsville Public Library board. Finally, in 1995 there were certain improvements made to the library in Huntsville to accommodate the increased demands that have occurred over the years. Those improvements included an enlargement of the facility itself.

It is because of the way in which the current Huntsville Public Library board was created that I am before you making these submissions on behalf of the town. For reasons which I will explain, I would submit that there are certain minor amendments, and I would suggest that they are technical amendments, which we would ask that the committee give consideration to address not only Huntsville's circumstances but possibly circumstances of other library boards within the province. The reason for these suggested minor amendments would be to ensure that the Huntsville library board would legally continue to exist.

As a general statement, I would note that the town of Huntsville is supportive of the general thrust of the proposed amendments contained in Bill 109 and believes that having the provision of library services and related activities controlled and managed at the local level is the most appropriate approach for addressing local needs and requirements.

1710

Turning to the legislative side of matters, provincial legislation with respect to the establishment of public libraries and public library boards has evolved over the years. For the purposes of this submission I think I need only note that at the time the Huntsville Public Library board as it is today was established, that being, as I mentioned, in 1971, the general legislation which was relevant to public libraries and public library boards was the Public Libraries Act of 1966.

That act contained several parts. Part I related to the empowering of municipalities, including towns, to pass bylaws establishing a public library and requiring that those libraries be managed and regulated by public library boards. Part II of that 1966 legislation pertained to provincial library services. Although since 1966 there have been changes to the legislation, the current legislation maintains that same structure, having a part I that relates to public libraries and library boards created by municipalities and part II pertaining to the provincial library service and Ontario library service areas.

Stepping back to the Huntsville scenario, as I indicated, the existing library board was created 25 years ago by virtue of a bylaw passed by town council, and that bylaw was passed pursuant to the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, 1970, and a related order in council.

If I could draw your attention to tab 3, I have included there an excerpt from the 1970 district municipality of Muskoka legislation. Section 150 of that legislation provided the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon receiving recommendations from the minister -- that would be the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- to "authorize all such acts or things not specifically provided for in the act that are deemed necessary or advisable to carry out effectively the intent and purposes of the act."

If you turn to tab 4, you will see there is a copy of an order in council approved by the Lieutenant Governor in September 1970. As you'll note in the preamble to that order in council, it makes specific reference to section 150 of the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, 1970. This order in council allowed for an area municipality -- the town of Huntsville is, as I mentioned, one of the six area municipalities within the district -- to establish a public library board, and that the bylaw establishing such a board would need the approval of the minister. Subsections (2) and (3) of that order in council make reference to the Public Libraries Act legislation as it existed at that time and required that the library board created pursuant to this order in council would be composed of the number of members provided for in the general legislation and, furthermore, that the provisions of the general legislation would apply to any library board created pursuant to this order in council.

I would then draw your attention to tab 5. At that tab you will find a copy of a 1971 bylaw passed by the town of Huntsville. This is the bylaw that creates the library board in Huntsville as we know it today. So this is the originating documentation with respect to what is currently in place.

While the Huntsville Public Library board was created pursuant to a municipal bylaw, it is certainly arguable, and I think it's probably fair to say, it was not created pursuant to part I of the Public Libraries Act. This is significant given the current language of Bill 109, specifically subsections 3(1) and 3(2), as those are the two subsections that deal with the continuation of existing public library boards.

The language in each of those subsections is quite specific and refers to public libraries and public library boards created "under this part." As I say, I think there may be some question as to whether Huntsville's board was created under part I of the Public Libraries Act. I think it's fairly clear it was created pursuant to the district of Muskoka act and the following order in council. As a consequence of this, the town of Huntsville has some concern with respect to the proposed legislation vis-à-vis the Huntsville Public Library board, although, as I mentioned earlier, I think it's fair to characterize this concern as being of a somewhat technical nature and I believe it's something capable of being addressed.

The concern specifically is, would the proposed subsections 3(1) and 3(2) of the act actually have the effect of continuing the Huntsville Public Library and, related to that, the library board?

As I have indicated, there is a long history of library service within Huntsville and the existing Huntsville Public Library board has been in existence for at least a quarter of a century. I believe the intent of the legislation is to maintain the continuance of library boards not just created under part I of the act but also library boards such as the Huntsville board which find their origins in different legislation.

As a result of that, I would like to ask the committee to consider the insertion of some additional language in the legislation. I've included that at tab 6. I have taken subsections 3(1) and 3(2) of Bill 109, and you'll see in underlining words that have been added to it which I would submit would, I think as best we can, address the concern that Huntsville has with respect to wanting to ensure the continuance of its library board.

I should mention that there may very well be other library boards that are in the same situation, and not only within the district of Muskoka. I did take a moment to check the regional municipality of York legislation, which was created about the same time, 1970, as the district of Muskoka legislation. The section 150 that I've taken from the district of Muskoka legislation, the same language, is found within the region of York act. For that reason, there may have been a similar process followed in other situations, and language such as is being proposed here may assist in addressing the technical issue that may be in place.

Those are my submissions to the committee, and I thank you for allowing me to attend before you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Effectively, again we only have time for one caucus to ask questions, and in that rotation it's Mr Gravelle.

Mr Gravelle: If I may, I would like to use this as an opportunity to ask a technical question of the parliamentary assistant, but perhaps the staff can help us with this one. I'm glad to see you nodding because this truly is a technical matter, Mr Garvey.

Mr Shea: I was prepared to indicate that we would indeed be reviewing this, and if there is a place where the minister can give consideration and relief, it will be explored very quickly. I'm going to give that undertaking.

Mr Garvey: Thank you.

Mr Shea: That may just resolve this matter very quickly for us, and we certainly appreciate your appearing before us.

The Chair: When you go back home, you can tell them what you accomplished. It was a worthwhile trip.

Mr Garvey: Okay. I want to see it in writing, though.

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

Committee members, that's the last presenter of the day. We will now recess until 9 o'clock tomorrow morning in Ottawa. Thank you, everyone, and thank you, London.

The committee adjourned at 1719.