MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS
The House resumed at 8:17 p.m.
MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS
Mr. Conway moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside in order to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious effects of the continuing community colleges strike and the provincial government's failure to reach a negotiated settlement.
Mr. Kerrio: Sounds like a reasonable debate.
Mr. Breaugh: The Speaker is in trouble. He is looking in the yellow book.
Mr. Edighoffer: The member is in order.
Mr. McClellan: Let us have a long procedural wrangle.
Mr. Speaker: I think we might. I have some difficulty with this, and I will ask for some direction from the House. The standing orders very clearly state that the hour of 6 p.m. during the week or 1 p.m. on Friday is the deadline. I do not know of, nor have I been made aware of, any agreement.
Mr. Kerrio: This is a special event day.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Those fellows over there have difficulties with things like watches.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, the acerbic Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) seems to have some very strong views on the subject. I would only say that I enter the motion in accordance with the rules as I understand them.
It has been an unusual day, Mr. Speaker. I think you have been tolerant of my conduct earlier today, and I would not want to press my luck.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I would not even call it luck.
Mr. Conway: The member opposite is so much more cheerful when he is clapping rather than swearing.
I would only say that my colleagues and I feel very strongly that the strike that is now well into its second week in the community colleges of this province is and must be considered a matter of urgent and pressing concern not only to this Legislature but also to the province beyond.
There are tens of thousands of people from Mount Forest to Pakenham who are very seriously in jeopardy because this strike is going on, and I know my friends the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) are as concerned as I am that this matter be resolved at the earliest opportunity and at the bargaining table.
It is in that spirit that I would move, pursuant to standing order 34(a), the motion for this emergency debate. I am concerned to know what particular activity the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) has been engaged in with respect to resolving this strike. I understand that in recent hours she has indicated --
Mr. Speaker: I think you are starting to debate a motion that I have not really decided is in order yet.
Mr. Conway: My only point is that, given the extraordinary nature of today's timetable --
Mr. Speaker: I heard exactly what you said and I appreciate what you are saying.
Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, if I may try to be helpful, I think the purpose of the standing order --
Interjections.
Mr. McClellan: Well, I can try.
Mr. Kennedy: That is a switch.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. McClellan: The purpose of standing order 34(b) is to limit debate on an emergency debate to one sitting, not having anticipated the kind of thing that happened this afternoon, obviously. It might be helpful if I suggested that we could proceed by unanimous consent to have the emergency debate argument this evening, and then it will be up to the House to decide whether the emergency debate proceeds. I think that is a reasonable suggestion.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I must agree with the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) that the intent of the standing order obviously is that the debate be brought forward by any honourable member under the rules before we enter the orders of the day, and that is the point we have achieved in the business of the House today.
If after you hear the arguments put by the three parties it is agreed that the debate should proceed, presumably the members of the House will have an opportunity to discuss this urgent and important matter until adjournment close to 10:30 p.m. That is a reasonable time for the debate on a subject of this nature, and I hope your well-known flexibility will allow you to interpret the rules in that way.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the arguments that were put forward. It is quite obvious that standing order 34 was not written to account for the kind of afternoon we had this afternoon. Since we have not reached orders of the day yet, this is the proper place for this motion to be put, and I certainly have no objection to going forward now with the arguments concerning whether we should have the debate.
Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously we have unanimous consent.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: No? Do we have unanimous consent or not? Agreed?
Agreed to.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker --
Mr. Speaker: Just a minute now. I would just like to point out to all honourable members --
Mr. Nixon: Do not give us point four.
Mr. Speaker: No. I was wondering what you were pointing to.
Obviously, it has been an unusual day until now and, with unanimous consent, of course, the debate can proceed. I just want to advise all honourable members that the motion was received in my office in time and I am prepared to listen for up to five minutes to each of the parties represented as to why the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate your judgement in that connection and the very helpful intervention of the government House leader. As my friend the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) says very wisely and properly, the very good counsel of our friend the member for Bellwoods was also appreciated.
I do not think there is any member in this chamber, on either side of this aisle, who would not agree at least from the point of view of local representation that this is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. If the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) are anything like myself or my colleagues, their offices are besieged these days with calls from students, parents, spouses, employers and others in the community about what is happening with this.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Not from the employers.
Mr. Conway: The Minister of Colleges and Universities says, "Not from the employers." I must say that is not true in all cases. There is great concern in Ontario about what is happening as a result of this now two-week-old strike. It is very unfortunate if there is anyone in this chamber, particularly the honourable lady who serves as Minister of Colleges and Universities, who may believe that somehow this is not a matter of urgent and pressing concern.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have never implied that; that leaves me absolutely speechless.
Mr. Conway: Well what did the minister mean?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Renfrew North address his remarks to the chair, please.
Mr. Conway: The interjections of the honourable lady are not always easy to understand.
Mr. Speaker: Interjections are out of order.
Mr. Conway: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I hope you will restrain our colleague.
There is grave concern in the community about what is being done to resolve this matter. We have now seen more than 13 days pass since this strike unhappily began. We have seen the Council of Regents, that emanation of the Ontario government, spend thousands of the taxpayers' dollars in recent days taking out advertisements in the print media of this province, thereby not helping to resolve the matter or to create a condition of conciliation at the negotiating table.
We have heard the minister in this chamber and outside indicate that it is her hope both sides will come together and that, failing that, there are contingencies. My leader and my colleagues have asked what those contingencies are, because believe me when I say there are this day thousands of young people and not-so-young people in this community college system of ours who are in real jeopardy with respect to their programs, and in some cases with respect to the employment that lies just beyond.
I have to believe that all members are anxious to know exactly what the current state of the strike is. I believe the minister herself has indicated that in past situations she has intervened. I think she has referred to a difficulty in the Sudbury schools three or four years ago when, at a critical juncture, she intervened to lend the considerable weight and prestige of her office to the resolution of that difficulty.
I must ask what plans the minister has now to involve herself personally to create a better condition for the resolution of this strike at the bargaining table. I have to believe that all members would agree with me that our first, second and third choices would be for the speedy resolution of this tragic difficulty at the negotiating table. That is certainly my view. However, there can be no question that if this matter is not resolved in the near future, some other action unhappily is going to have to be contemplated. I do not want to see this strike go on any longer than it has to date.
8:30 p.m.
In recent days, the minister has indicated in this House that she has been very generous as a minister in terms of the additional support she has offered to the community colleges. My colleagues on the government side should believe that is not the view of those in the community colleges and most particularly of the teaching instructors. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what are the current plans of this government to deal with this matter of urgent and pressing concern?
Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion requesting an emergency debate with respect to the situation in the colleges across Ontario.
The first note of emergency arises out of the fact that negotiations broke down about the middle of the afternoon. The parties parted saying to each other, "Call me if there is anything new." That is where it stands after virtually two weeks of negotiations. That is where it stands after two weeks in which the minister and her ministry have acted almost as press agents for the Council of Regents and the management side of this issue. I say that advisedly.
The crisis also lies not just in the obduracy of the Council of Regents, which has said absolutely no this afternoon to any consideration of a reasonable work load arrangement, but also in the fact that at the end of two weeks there are groups of students who now find themselves hovering on the brink of the future of their own educational careers.
Of the 120,000 full-time students and the some 600,000 part-time students, there are some 15,000 in the college system who are Canada Employment and Immigration Commission students. At first they were assured the money sustaining them in their studies was not in jeopardy. About a week ago they received a second memo indicating they could continue at what courses were in progress. They are now awaiting a third bulletin from that commission, which is looking less and less certain in terms of the message it will bring to them. They are calling us in considerable numbers and are concerned about the future of their education.
There are other students whose examinations do not rest with the colleges but with other agencies. For example, the insurance administration programs have their exams administered by other bodies. Those other bodies are saying they are not changing the date of examination regardless of the course of the studies and the problems a student may have at the moment.
The crisis we face is not just one that rests with the Council of Regents. As I intimated, the crisis and emergency trace themselves back into the ministry. The minister likes to speak of the council and the boards of the institutions as though they were autonomous, yet whenever we probe into that situation we discover the minister's hand or an official of her ministry is there sitting on a board, sitting in advisory capacity and in fact exercising immense influence on the progress of events.
It is not surprising that what we find in the council in terms of its refusal to budge on the work load issue is a refusal on the part of the minister to meet the absolutely pressing demands of the system for more teachers, more support staff and more resources. Whatever she says about the money going into the system that she has reported to us in the last day or two, she has not accounted for the fact that in three of the years in question, inflation rates accounted for at least 30 per cent of the moneys that were going into the system. Over the five years in which the major productivity study has been undertaken, student enrolment went up at least 30 per cent. In the course of that time, the actual cost of delivering a student out of the system went down by 17.3 per cent.
The statistics one faces as delivered by the minister to us as explanation for the situation just do not all stack up. This emergency debate is necessary to get at the problem and explain the problems facing the students and the overwork the faculty, on the whole, is undeniably facing. It is necessary to get at the root problem that lies within the ministry and with that minister with respect to the future of this system so that the quality of education may be maintained in the colleges of this province and so that those students may have the best when they graduate out of this system.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the college system within the province is without doubt one of the best systems of education in applied arts and technology anywhere in the world. It is certainly the best in North America. It is so because for the past 17 years there has been strong co-operation among bodies such as the individual boards of governors of the various colleges, the administration of the various colleges, the faculty members of those colleges and the Council of Regents which is responsible for developing general policies for the colleges. That co-operative stance remained in place until this year. It is unfortunate there was a breakdown in the co-operative arrangements this year.
It is unfortunate that for the first time within the 17-year history of the college system there is a disruption of service which is severely affecting a considerable number of students in the province. Those students are made up of post-secondary and part-time students and those who are funded by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission under the unemployment insurance program delivered by Canada Manpower or under the apprenticeship program. It is the role of the UIC and CEIC to provide the support for those students and to provide the colleges with the funds that are available for teaching the students.
We have been informed that when strikes of this sort have happened in other jurisdictions, CEIC stops the delivery of funds for tuition at the end of two weeks but continues to provide support for the sustenance of students for a considerable time. It is our information that CEIC, in support of the students, will continue to monitor this on a weekly basis from the end of this week, and will inform us regularly of its decisions in this matter.
No one is more concerned about the future education and careers of the students at the colleges than the members of government. In spite of the suggestions made by the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), although there was a cessation of discussion this afternoon, it is my understanding that both parties will return to the bargaining table with the mediator either tomorrow or Thursday and that there will be reasonable discussion of all items on the agenda.
Until now there has been discussion only about the work load matter. Nothing else has been discussed or agreed to. There are at least 12 other items that could be discussed and agreed to. If that were done, there would be the real possibility of the best kind of settlement in this situation: a negotiated one.
The college system must work with its faculty, the faculty must work with the administration after the strike is over and each must work in support of the students. A negotiated settlement, unencumbered by the kind of partisan, political rhetoric that will likely emerge from a so-called emergency debate tonight, is probably the best solution for the students and for the future of the college system.
8:40 p.m.
Therefore, I strongly suggest that we allow the negotiation process to continue as it should with the kind of freedom for discussion of those matters within the agenda. They should not restrict discussion to one matter only and not be burdened by the kinds of statements that might be made within this House in which it would be very difficult for members on either side to remain entirely neutral.
The assignation of blame is most likely to occur as a result of such a debate and I do not think that would add anything to the negotiating process. Therefore, I ask that we continue to encourage both parties in these negotiations to meaningfully discuss those items that are to be negotiated for the settlement and to begin the process as vigorously and effectively as they possibly can, keeping in mind at all times that the future of the students is at stake in all this negotiation.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the presentation put forward by the three honourable members --
Mr. Elston: Nevertheless.
Mr. Speaker: Now you have interrupted me. I do have some reservations because this is, in many respects, somewhat similar to an earlier motion that was put forward by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) on October 18, if my memory serves me correctly.
The House in its wisdom at that time decided not to discuss the matter and, therefore, I find this motion is in order. The question before the House is, shall the debate proceed?
All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion negatived.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT
Hon. Ms. Fish moved second reading of Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries.
Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any remarks?
Hon. Ms. Fish: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do.
I am pleased to open debate on second reading of Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries. As members know, Bill 93 is the result of a long and very intensive consultation with the library community, municipal government and interested citizens. My colleague and predecessor, now the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz), actually began the process in 1980 when he established the Ontario public library program review, headed by Mr. Peter Bassnett, the chief executive officer of Scarborough Public Library.
When I introduced this bill on June 4, 1984, I detailed for members of this House the extraordinary number of meetings and submissions that went into Mr. Bassnett's review, some 150 public meetings, 360 briefs and 15 task group reports. A subsequent ministry discussion paper issued on completion of the review prompted more than 350 additional responses from right across Ontario.
From the time this bill was introduced on June 4 until today, I have received an extraordinary number of letters and submissions of briefs and I have conducted several meetings with interested members on the questions related to this bill and the reaction to it. In that respect, I treat the period of time that has elapsed from first reading to the opportunity for this second reading debate tonight as a positive period of time, during which an opportunity to continue dialogue and consultation has been afforded to me, to members of the interested library and municipal communities and to citizens at large.
I am firmly of the belief that the process, through the public library review, through the responses to the ministry paper and over this past summer and fall of consideration on this bill as introduced, demonstrates, as nothing else does, the esteem in which libraries are held and the care with which the people of this province, particularly members of library boards, interested members of council or interested citizens at large, view this legislation. I hope it will establish a framework for libraries for many years down the road.
That participation does not end simply with tonight's second reading debate. I committed several months ago, and I believe this position is shared on all sides of the House, that this bill would go to a standing committee to provide for specific detailed submissions that could come before the committee in clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
Notwithstanding that there was an opportunity to make submissions directly to me during the course of this summer, I continue to believe that referring this bill to a standing committee and permitting a formal submission and hearing process directly on clause-by-clause would be most beneficial.
Let me say, however, that on the basis of the correspondence and submissions I have received to date, I believe there are several areas in the bill that could well benefit from clarification and amendment, which would help to fine-tune the focus and intent of this bill.
I have therefore taken the perhaps somewhat unusual step of developing some draft amendments based on those submissions and reactions, which I will be prepared to move at the appropriate time in our process of consideration of this bill, which of course is not tonight. I have taken the liberty of making those amendments available to my critics and will have copies broadly available for interested members of the public and for communities that have already been in touch with me.
Let me take just a few moments to highlight some, but by no means all, of the possible areas of clarification and fine-tuning. I am sure all of us agree that libraries and library services work best and are most effective when support for the local library is firmly rooted in the community, when the library board reflects the community and when the community takes an active, full and complete interest in the library service and in the working of the board, which is so fundamental to determining a service.
To encourage what I would call a very broad community representation on library boards, I have proposed that the municipal councils appoint the members of the library board. Within this question of appointment, a couple of things are worth noting.
I have asked that at least three members of the board be appointed on the recommendation of the appropriate school board for the area. I want to make it very clear that this is a minimum requirement only. There are areas in which I would venture to say the local community may well want to have all its library board members appointed on recommendation of the school board, and I think that is just fine; there are other areas that may wish to have some members of council along with school board representatives and some members of the community at large and so forth, and that is fine.
The object here, as in so many other areas of the bill, is to provide a flexible framework that enables the local community to assess what is appropriate for the community and to be able to apply it, setting the minimum that I believe, and I think we all believe, must happen, which is that there be at least some clear, direct representation.
But minimums are not where we leave library services; we look to maximums, and maximums result when there is strong community support: for example, when the municipalities, which are the primary funding source for the libraries, take a clear and specific interest in the needs of the libraries and of the community as identified through the library board and provide the necessary resources and financial support to enable the programs and services to be carried out.
8:50 p.m.
It is my view that it is necessary, since municipal councils are indeed the principal funding source, to make it clear that the library board will be accountable on financial matters to the municipal councils through an annual estimates process, an annual process of review on application for grant, which currently exists in most cases.
Bill 93 also provides that major capital expenditures by a board are subject to the approval of a council. I intend to amend section 24 to make it very clear that the boards retain the responsibility for handling their budgets and particularly for determining appropriate services and materials. However, I do ask that they do so within a legitimate framework of financial interest that might be expressed by a municipality during an estimates process.
I want to make very clear that the municipal council, while it has a legitimate interest in certain financial questions, is not a substitute for a library board and the existence of a library board as a separate body responsible for determining services, and particularly determining materials, will be extremely important.
I think this change will not only maintain an appropriate financial accountability, but it will also, and I think this is important, educate the municipal council to the programs and needs of its libraries. I served as a member of local council and also a member of the library board. I am only too aware of the importance of a very close working relationship between the board and the council and the desirability of increasing and expanding the knowledge on the part of municipal council of the needs of the board and of the council taking a genuine true interest in discharging its responsibility as a major funding arm for library services.
From our end, this government and my ministry have always been partners with local communities in funding library services. Our commitment was demonstrated again by the increase this year to match the funding levels on transfer payments to general municipal government. To reinforce and make clear that support will continue to be provided from the provincial government, I intend to amend section 30 so that this government's support for library services will be clear and unequivocal, and the "may" that is currently shown will be altered to read "shall."
As I said earlier, my aim in all of these matters has been to provide a flexibility in the development and delivery of library services. I think every member of this House would agree there are tremendous differences in makeup, size, resources, skills and a variety of other aspects of our communities right across this province.
Through this legislation, I am trying to afford the best possible opportunity for an appropriate structure to develop and the appropriateness to be determined by the local community. To that end, I will be introducing an amendment to section 9 to allow municipalities over 100,000 in population to increase their board size to a range of nine to 15 rather than the five to nine that had been previously stipulated.
Similarly, in response to county library boards and their councils who have indicated that a lower limit to the current range of nine to 15 board members would be preferable, I propose that we amend subsections 9(4) and 9(6) to lower the range to between seven and 15.
I would also like to clarify that municipal councils may choose to delegate the calling of a board's first meeting to the chief executive officer of the library board rather than to the clerk of the appointing council as had been contemplated in the bill as it currently stands. One of the key elements in our library system is public participation. I believe very deeply that board meetings must be open to the public and board records available for public review.
There are some very important exceptions to that which I feel are equally important. The exceptions will be intimate financial and personal matters and will include personnel issues; and what is particularly important, especially with the move to computerized technological bases, the specific detail of individual patron records will be one of the excluded aspects on public review. I will be introducing specific amendments to clarify this point, which has been raised in a number of briefs and submissions and discussed as a point of particular concern within the library community.
As members know, when I introduced Bill 93, I undertook to ensure free access to core library services, including circulating books. Membership or administrative charges for library cards are contrary to the intent of this bill. Many libraries today, however, are dealing in a major way with more than just books. Other materials, such as videodiscs and tapes, records, films and computer software, are becoming major components of a library's basic service today. I am very sympathetic to the suggestion that these materials should be included as circulating material available to everyone free of charge.
Representatives of some libraries who have been in touch, however, have suggested they cannot initiate or maintain such services in these costly materials without some sort of additional funding, such as a user fee. I feel, therefore, that the premise of core circulating materials -- books or materials that are free of the user charge -- is precisely what we should be striving for, and I would like to make clear that this was my preference.
I chose in the initial introduction of this bill to confine it to books because of definitional problems and contrary advice from the library community. However, I think this area in particular is very worthy of further consideration. I would welcome the views of my colleagues and of the library community on the ways in which we might define materials so as to broaden the category of things that will be available free of a user charge.
Finally, the legislation that is before us today is designed to provide what I believe will be a practical, flexible framework that will enable communities to establish and strengthen the kind of library system and service that are most appropriate to each area. I would ask, however, that this bill not be read in isolation from the many programs, initiatives and support services that are provided directly to libraries in a library community by activities of my ministry that do not, of course, show in the legislation.
These activities are extremely important because the legislation itself does not provide the full picture. I am referring to initiatives such as the library co-operative automation program, the Escarpment Telecommunications Pilot, our provincial co-ordinators in the areas of French-language, multicultural and multilingual services and library services for disabled persons and native people. These and many other programs are assisting Ontario's libraries to meet the challenges of the information era.
The changes we are addressing through Bill 93 are designed to respect and maintain what I believe has been a very proud tradition of a first-class library system in this province. I think there has been tremendous assistance from and active involvement on the part of the library community in the development of this bill. I know it will continue as we proceed into standing committee and deputations. I am confident that the results will be a bill that provides the kind of dynamic and helpful framework that, as I said earlier, will really set the stage for a much strengthened library service in this province.
Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I must inform you that I was recently asked to be the new critic for this ministry. When I received the background material for this legislation, I found it quite extensive. I must say I found it almost impossible to review it all in the time I had. I almost thought I was in the former committee concerned with the Astra/Re-Mor affair when I saw the piles of material that came across my desk.
However, not for my own sake but for the sake of the people in the Ontario Library Association, the Ontario Library Trustees Association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and so on, I am glad to be informed that the minister will be sending this bill for further consideration to standing committee and then, of course, back to committee in the Legislature.
9 p.m.
As the minister stated, this has been a long process. I believe it commenced in 1980 when the now minister of Tourism and Recreation had responsibility for libraries. He made a great statement to the Ontario Provincial Library Council, stating that the government had a new vision and that this would take place in the study that would come before people in the province.
I must also thank the minister for sending me copies of her proposed amendments, which we will be discussing in committee. Some of the changes seem somewhat trivial, but I am certain that some of the items will be of some consequence and should dispel some of the fears of the boards.
As I came into the House tonight, I was handed a letter from the president of the Ontario Library Trustees Association and I thought it might be helpful to have it on record. It is a letter sent to the minister. I would like to quote from the letter.
"I have been directed by the trustees of the Ontario Library Trustees Association present on the occasion of the annual meeting of the association held in Ottawa on October 26 to write to you in response to the information we have received that, since you have received only 40 submissions re Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries, you perceive that few people seem to have concerns about the bill.
"The members present expressed the view in the form of a motion that we should point out to you that a brief to you from a regional board or from either the Ontario Library Association or from our own association misrepresents the views of many boards and many individuals within those units and should not be perceived as a single brief.
"We are of the view that many people in the library world do, indeed, have deep concerns about the bill as it was presented at first reading in June and we wish to have an opportunity to so respond at an appropriate committee hearing."
"Margaret Coburn, president, Ontario Library Trustees Association."
I want again to stress that there are quite a number of people throughout the province who have considerable concerns.
I have received quite a number of letters from different boards and I felt the best way was for me to put this on record. I think this letter from the London Public Library board really sets out many of the concerns of many of the boards and associations.
This letter was written on June 14, soon after the legislation was introduced.
"At its meeting held on June 13, 1984, the London Public Library board considered Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries, and its impact on the management and services of the London Public Libraries and Museums.
"It is the board's opinion that Bill 93 should not receive immediate second and third readings, but rather should be referred to a committee of the Legislature for study. It would be most unfortunate if hasty approval now negated almost four years of study by not only the ministry, but also hundreds of interested citizens across Ontario.
"Many of the excellent proposals for a new Public Libraries Act are extremely positive, but amendments should be considered in a few areas noted below."
I want to denote these areas because I believe they include many of the difficulties that have been expressed by other groups.
"Since a copy of the bill was made available to us only during the first week of June, time has been not sufficient for a complete evaluation.
"Section 9(1): It is not clear how a municipality establishes the composition of a board. If a new library were being established under section 3(1), it could be done at that time. Otherwise, it would appear the composition could be changed every three years or even more often.
"Subsection 9(2): The method proposed to include school board representation appears to be both cumbersome and inefficient. If a school board has sufficient interest in the public library to make recommendations, surely it has enough credibility to make the appointments itself.
"Subsection 10(3): This clause does not provide for continuity on the board, a matter of concern.
"Subsection 14(1): It is not clear why the clerk of the municipality should call the first meeting of the board. If it is a corporation with a secretary responsible for the board's records, surely the clerk should notify the secretary as to the appointments, who would then call the first meeting as established in the board's organizational bylaws. This clause could lead to difficulties if the clerk determined not to call a meeting or did not liaise with the board's secretary. The clause complicates a rather simple procedure.
"Subsection 15(2): It is a matter of great concern that not only is the chief executive officer not a professional librarian, but no reference is made to a librarian in the whole act. Is it the intent of the ministry to permit the operation of large library systems without any expertise on staff?
"Section 18: It is unreasonable to expect council to deal with expenses of the board members. It is also somewhat of an insult to responsible citizens who serve on library boards to require them to seek an allowance from council. Since no mention is made with respect to remuneration, it is assumed board members serve without pay. This matter should be clearly stated.
"Section 20d: If 'special services' is meant to include art galleries and museums, the term should be defined so that there is no misunderstanding on the matter. It is important that the act be clear, so that any board that operates such a service or a community information service is eligible for the provincial funding normally available to independent authorities.
"Subsection 24(2): The provision that council has the power to impose 'any terms and conditions' on the board when estimates are approved is so broad that it makes the board's role not only difficult, but to a large extent meaningless. It would appear the legislation makes the board responsible, but at the same time removes most of its authority.
"Section 28: Although the section on inspection of records is taken from the old act, surely it should be clear it does not include those financial and personal matters noted in subsection 16(3) which a board determines are confidential.
"On a further matter of confidentiality, a clause should be included with respect to patron records on the use of library materials, which should remain confidential except under due process of law.
"Subsection 33(2): The composition of an Ontario library service board may be so large it will become inefficient and very expensive. At the same time, the difference in the appointed terms of members of a municipal library board and an Ontario library service board may lead to uncertainty. It is also important to note that without some form of proportionate representation the large municipalities within the Ontario library system area are not adequately represented.
"We feel that in the interest of clarity subsection 21(2) of the existing act should be enacted as a subsection of the new section 23 to ensure that boards can recover value of lost or damaged articles.
"There are a number of statements where definitions are required. For instance, subsection 29(1) refers to a 'local service board' without any indication as to its meaning."
Those are some of the concerns listed by the chairman of the London public library board. I think many of the concerns are spelled out clearly.
9:10 p.m.
I know the councils and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario met very recently -- I believe it was in Orillia and Barrie on two different occasions -- and went over this bill. I do not want to go into details because they have not submitted a brief, but I am certain they are going to prepare something for the committee when it meets. I know they appreciate the opportunity to be able to present their brief.
There is one part of the legislation that concerns me. I noticed in one of the backgrounders, which I believe was prepared by the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture and issued on June 4, 1984, one of the comments stated: "Nonparticipating municipalities will have the option of joining the county at a later date. Cities and separated towns will also be allowed to join the county system if they so desire."
I agree with this. I am concerned about the first sentence which says, "Nonparticipating municipalities will have the option of joining the county at a later date." I hope that option is left open for them to make that decision themselves. When I read subsections 7(1), (3) and (4), I believe that is what it means, but I hope the minister will clarify that for me.
The minister made reference to section 23, which states, "A board shall not make a charge for admission to a public library or for use in the library of the library's materials." This seems fairly specific. However, it may be possible to clarify some of those services where charges can be made and to be somewhat more explicit.
The other day I was reading over an interview the minister had with a writer in Focus, the magazine of the Ontario Library Association. She said in her interview that she expected greater co-operation in the future. I hope that is correct. When I was going through some of my material, I noticed there was a letter from the board of the Lake Erie Regional Library System, which encompasses Elgin, Middlesex and Oxford. In that letter this board was reporting to the minister as follows:
"I must report to you, Mr. Minister, that this board has been fully informed of the operations and services administered by our director and staff and that we have approved their actions and advised them of our decisions on a regular basis. We have always assumed that our director is answerable to your ministry's branch through this board.
"However, during the past several months, a number of communications have been sent to the ministry, directly to the director of our system. Very few were addressed to the board. These letters have dealt with administrative measures such as regional travel, hiring of staff, detailed vehicle leasing and capital expenditure. In one of them, also addressed to the director, the ministry questioned this board's long-standing support for automation of library services in our region."
I will not go on, but it appears to me there may have been some lack of coordination or communication between the ministry and the boards. I do not want to take up too much time, but part II of this bill creates some problem for me. I know it creates a greater problem for many of my colleagues, who, I am sure, will want to speak particularly on this section. It sets out or establishes Ontario library service areas. In other words, I understand it reduces the number of areas from 14 to eight.
Mr. Eakins: That is regional government.
Mr. Haggerty: There are going to be some political plums there.
Mr. Edighoffer: If you do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring out this report that was commissioned and presented to the government back in November 1975. I know that is a few years ago, but there is one particular section I would like to read regarding delivery of services to the public:
"To make the most effective use of the resources available, ministries have a degree of flexibility in their choice of program delivery mechanisms. To provide and maintain the necessary level of service to the public, they can draw not only on their own resources but also on those of the agencies, boards and commissions that report to them as well as independent nonprofit agencies. In addition, they may contract some work out to the private sector.
"To provide better local service to the public, program delivery and decision-making have been extensively decentralized to regional offices across the province. This approach may improve the level of services provided, but regional offices are expensive to establish and maintain. Before any new regional offices are put into operation, their costs must be weighed carefully against the expected benefits to ensure that expenditures are justified.
"The committee recommends that before further regionalization of the delivery of public services is permitted, a careful and thorough analysis be undertaken of the associated costs and benefits to ensure that expenditures of this type are fully justified."
I thought it was most interesting that the then Treasurer, Darcy McKeough, seemed to accept this. At one point, I believe, regional government slowed down generally; it really did not just take place once in this report. I can go back to page 206 under "Proposals for Future Planning." I will not go into it in detail, but one recommendation says: "If in the future it is decided that additional restructuring should occur, a prime prerequisite is the achievement of cost savings rather than expansion of services." I hope the minister can back up her plans for larger regions with a thorough analysis of the associated costs and benefits.
I am also concerned about this section dealing with appointments to the Ontario library service areas. I have to ask the minister whether she can explain, when replying later this evening or on some other occasion, if I am correct in understanding subsection 33(2), which says:
"A board shall consist of:
"(a) one member appointed by the public library board for every municipality within the Ontario library service area that has a population of 15,000 or more;
"(b) one member appointed by the county library board for every county within the Ontario library service area."
I will not read the first section of clause (c).
Mr. Foulds: Go ahead.
Mr. Edighoffer: Shall I go ahead?
Mr. Foulds: Go ahead.
Mr. Edighoffer: I will go down to subclause c(ii):
"(c) if the number of members appointed under clauses (a) and (b) is... (ii) nine or more, a number of additional members appointed by the minister that does not exceed one less than the number appointed under clauses (a) and (b)."
9:20 p.m.
As I understand that, and I was just looking in my own region, if there are nine municipalities and 15 library boards, there would be 24 appointments. Subclause 33(2)(c)(ii) means the minister could also appoint one fewer than that number, which would be 23.
Mr. Piché: Now that they are all confused, what are you getting at? I am totally confused.
Mr. Edighoffer: I thought the member would be. That is understandable.
What I would like to know from the minister is the maximum number of appointments she expects to make in regions set out in the new proposal.
I am going to support this legislation because there are two further steps: standing committee and committee of the whole House. As the minister informed us when she introduced this bill, there are some amendments she will be presenting to the committee. I feel I have to agree with the legislation because of the consultation that has taken place over the last four years. We have finally come to this stage.
On a few occasions other ministers have introduced such legislation and sent it to standing committee as a draft bill. That was not done in this case. However, I hope it will be a reasonably lengthy debate, because there are quite a number of groups that want to make proposals.
I will support the legislation on second reading, with very great hesitations about part II. I am certainly not in favour of further regionalization unless the minister can show me particular savings. I look forward to an open discussion in committee on this legislation.
Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to debate Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries. I would like to say to the minister and to the Liberal Party that this party will be opposing this legislation on second reading. I am going to try as best I can in the time available to me, which I guess will be until I finish, to outline the reasons why we are going to oppose this legislation.
The government had not intended to be dealing with this legislation at this time. It intended all of us to be on the hustings on October 9 and to be involved in an election campaign. After the election campaign was over, and if by chance they had formed another majority government -- who knows? -- they would have brought in this bill and got rid of the library boards across this province. That is what the intent of this bill is. It makes library boards advisory bodies of the councils in the province.
I am not interested in going into the details of this bill clause by clause. We will have plenty of opportunity to do that in committee of the whole House and in the committee this bill will go to. What I want to talk about is principles. One principle is that the government believes municipal councils ought to have total and absolute control over library boards in this province. That is there in every clause of the bill.
It was there prior to October 8, prior to the possible calling of an election. When an election was not called, the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture began to scurry about trying to read the many briefs that were sent to the minister after the first reading of this bill in June, to see what the concerns of these people were. What were the concerns of the Ontario Library Association? What were the concerns of the London library board? What were the concerns of the Etobicoke library board, the Toronto Public library board, St. Catharines library board and so on.
Mr. Foulds: Thunder Bay.
Mr. Grande: Thunder Bay, up in northern Ontario. The boards have a tremendous number of concerns, which I hope I will have time to outline.
The point I am trying to make is that the government was not interested in dealing with this piece of legislation until after an election. The ministry was caught when this legislation came through and it began to scramble to present some amendments, at the wrong time in the debate, of course, to try to defuse the issues that people have been talking to the minister about since June 1984. I am going to try to put forward those issues, but in terms of principles not in terms of clause by clause.
People, library boards, trustees and professional librarians are concerned that councils will have the ultimate authority. Their concern is that the library boards are not going to be performing the function they have performed in the past.
The Free Libraries Act was instituted about 100 years ago, and no major changes have been made to that act. The consultation process the minister has been talking about has been going on for three and a half to four years, since 1980. Obviously, the government has not been listening. How else do we explain the fact that this very evening we received a letter, which the critic of the Liberal Party mentioned as well, from the Ontario Library Trustees Association, saying: "Hey, Madam Minister, do not think only those few submissions you have received are the total concerns people across this province have about this bill. There are a lot more"?
I do not think I should take the time of the House to put into the record the letter the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) has already presented. The Ontario Library Trustees Association is very concerned that the views of the library community have been put forward but that the minister has not listened to them. Through the amendments the minister is providing she is beginning to say, "Look, I am listening;" but in ways that will not affect the fundamental aspect of this bill, which is to give control of the library boards to municipal councils.
9:30 p.m.
The first principle of the bill is authority versus autonomy. Are the library boards going to be autonomous bodies, as they have been in the past 100 years in this province, or are they going to be merely advisory bodies to municipal councils? I suggest to the minister that there are a tremendous number of dangers in taking away the autonomy the library boards have been enjoying over the past many years.
The Ontario Library Association put it very nicely when it talked about the statute in Alberta. The guide to the Alberta library legislation states, "Council should have the power to decide how much money a board will receive, but not how it is spent."
Because in her former role the minister was a municipal politician who happened to be sitting on the Toronto library board, I am sure she understands and brings to this Legislature a municipal council bias on the situation. Basically, the danger in the extreme is that a municipal council will say to the library board, "You as the library board cannot buy these titles to put on your shelf; otherwise, we will cut that item from your budget."
The minister can try to change the section that says, "The amount of the board's estimates that is approved by the council, subject to any terms and conditions the council imposes, shall be adopted by the board and shall be paid to the board out of the moneys appropriated for it."
That is where the power lies, with the municipal council. I want to point out to the minister there is tremendous danger there. She can choose to go in that direction, but she will do so without the support of this party. This party believes the hundreds of people on municipal library boards are doing a job on a voluntary basis and do not need to be told by councils how to spend the money allocated for library board budgets.
Everybody understands and accepts the principle that councils and library boards ought to work very closely together. There is not one line in any of the briefs that says, "There is absolutely no way we want anything to do with council." They understand the council provides about 80 per cent of the funding and therefore council should have an input. Basically they are saying, "Let the council approve the estimates of a board, but once the council does that, then the library board ought to be deciding how that money is spent."
Part of the cultural aspect of this province lies with its libraries. I very seriously suggest to the minister not to tamper with that approach, which has been working well during the past 100 years in Ontario. If the minister has any reason to suggest why that approach is no longer usable or is somehow being subverted, she should bring us the evidence and tell us where it is happening. If she does not have the evidence, then she should leave it as it is.
Another principle in this legislation that disturbs me greatly is in section 23. The principle here is that library clients or patrons who use the libraries can only borrow books from the library or "use reference and information services as the board considers practicable."
This is back to the 1940s. The library community and the library system of this province have moved far ahead. We cannot go back to the 1940s. Libraries no longer deal just with books; libraries deal with films, film strips, videotapes and computer software. What is the minister doing here? What she is saying is: "Let us downgrade the standards that the libraries of this province have achieved over the past many years. Let us develop a core of services that every library must provide."
What happens is that the core she is developing is a core that libraries were providing 30 years ago, and now she wants us to go backwards. She wants the library community in Ontario to return to the 1940s. I think this daft step backwards can only mean that the government is interested in making sure there are tremendous cutbacks and underfunding in the library system.
I really think the minister should listen to professional librarians and trustees who, as I said before, are there on a voluntary basis and stop this fee-for-service kick she is on. If she thinks an individual who walks off the street, goes into a library and wants to borrow a cassette ought to pay a fee, she should say so. She should not just say an individual can go to a library and borrow only a book and that is it, and that there should be no payment for a library card.
That kind of situation in section 23 has to be, at best, changed radically. As far as I am concerned, she should take a look at the library boards wherever the highest standards of library service are provided and then provide the funding to other libraries across the province to achieve those standards. In other words, provide challenges for people in this province. Do not throw us back to the 1940s, the prehistoric times of library services.
The Etobicoke Public Library board basically has said this very same thing to you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member should be reminded that he speaks through the chair to any other honourable member in the House.
Mr. Grande: Through you, Mr. Speaker, the Etobicoke Public Library says --
Mr. Foulds: That is so hard, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Samis: What about the member for Cochrane North, too? Are you listening?
Mr. Piché: Yes. I am getting an education right now.
Mr. Grande: You certainly are.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have that quote from the library board, but basically every public library board whose brief I have had occasion to read, and any kind of correspondence to me or to this party, has said we should be talking about library materials and specifying the kinds of library materials that should be free to the public. We should not downgrade the standards.
That is the kind of thing this party is about. We want to improve standards, we want to improve access to our libraries for the people in Ontario; we do not want to downgrade and cut back.
9:40 p.m.
The next issue I want to mention briefly, because I am sure that in committee we are going to have plenty of opportunity, is another issue that is felt without exception by everyone in the library community. Why is it that school boards can no longer appoint trustees to public library boards? Why is it that school boards have to recommend to councils and then council makes a decision in terms of who is going to be on that? Basically, they are saying the school board ought to appoint directly to the library board, whether it be the separate school board or the public school board, depending on which board has the majority of electors.
That makes sense because, after all, libraries in this province perform not just a recreational function in terms of recreational reading but they also perform an educational function so the board needs to have people who understand the needs of the school population. Basically, from what I have been told, and I did not know this, the public library trustees appointed by the school boards are some of the most hard-working members of library boards.
Why is there this total and complete obsession on the government's part with eliminating school boards from appointing trustees on public library boards? Why is it of such major, earth-shaking importance that municipal councils have to have the total control?
Basically, I want to talk about funding and take a look at the library board funding by this government, even though I understand it is providing only 20 per cent of the funds to library boards. Its record has been dismal to say the least.
The government is talking about per capita funding, which right now is $2.15. If one takes a look at the budgets between the years 1977 and 1981, we are talking about 4.5 per cent increases, when in 1981 alone inflation was 12.4 per cent. We are talking about meeting inflation, especially in the printing business, the printing industry, in the book publishing industry.
Inflation in the price of books has skyrocketed during the last three or four years. We have a provincial government that is providing to the library boards three and four per cent increases, and not on a yearly basis either, because the per capita grant is usually frozen for two or three years in a row and then it is increased by four or five per cent when inflation has gone up eight, 10 or 12 per cent.
In other words, the idea is certainly there that the government of this province wants to rid itself of its responsibilities and commitment to funding public library boards in this province.
Of course, we know through this bill that the intent of the ministry was that the ministry "may" make grants out of consolidated revenue to the library boards. It may make grants.
I am glad that a couple of weeks ago I went across the floor -- briefly mind you -- and said to the minister: "What is with this 'may' stuff? What is this? Are you trying to get out of funding the libraries in this province?" The minister, to her credit, said, "I will look into it and then we will see what we can do about it.' Now she will bring in an amendment at the proper time to change "may" fund to "will" fund.
However, to go back to my original premise, this is only occurring now because the election was not called on October 9. If we had had an election and this bill were debated after the election, we would not have seen any amendments whatsoever to this legislation.
I want to say to the minister that on the principles to which I am referring -- namely, the principles of access to libraries and library materials -- we want to improve the standards, not decrease them. Section 23 of the act will have to be changed. Maybe the minister will do some thinking between now and the time we go to committee with respect to how to change and define it.
I refute the minister's premise that during the committee hearings we or the library community are going to be defining "materials." As the minister knows, the problem is that some libraries charge for certain services and others do not charge for a particular service, and she will not get a consensus on that.
What I am trying to say is that there ought to be provincial standards to have every person in Ontario who wants to use a library board have access to library books, services, materials and the programs libraries set out.
I was suggesting that since the minister was for a time on the board of the Toronto Public Library, she would know the kinds of literacy programs the library boards have set up. Some of us talk and try to impress on the Minister of Education that we should have literacy programs in this province, and the libraries are beginning to do something such as that.
What is probably happening is that, with the underfunding we are talking about, we are giving municipal councils a tremendous amount of power that is awesome, as far as I am concerned, and dangerous to the library system in this province. What is going to happen is that those services are going to be cut back or restricted tremendously.
I say to the minister and to members of my caucus representing northern Ontario that I wish I had some time to talk about library boards in northern Ontario. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), if he is able to be here, considering his other duties in committee, will certainly tell stories as to how those library boards rely on interlibrary loans for people to have access to materials. There is a charge of $8 or $9 for a book for a three-week period.
He would tell the House that librarians in northern Ontario have said, "There is absolutely no way that I am going to go to a conference in Toronto because I cannot afford it out of my own pocket, out of the money that I earn." There is a subsidy. However, who pays for the hotels and who pays for 25 per cent of the transportation costs?
If the minister wants to hear people from northern Ontario, in this case from the library boards, perhaps she should go up there and make herself available to the people and listen to their concerns.
9:50 p.m.
When I hear that a person in northern Ontario has to pay $8 to have a book for three weeks, I say those services for sure have to be part of the free access I was talking about. There is absolutely no way that can go on in Ontario in 1984.
I want to come to the end of my initial remarks --
Mr. Breaugh: Do not do that.
Mr. Samis: No.
Mr. Grande: Even though my colleagues are encouraging me to go on, I feel I do not need to speak at length.
I was interested in letting the House know the position of the New Democratic Party on these issues and basically on three policy directions, and this bill goes in opposition to those three policy directions; namely, the policy direction of authority versus autonomy of library boards, the policy direction of free access to library material for everybody in Ontario, and underfunding and cutback in services. With the kind of funding this government provides to libraries, it is no wonder they would want to push them over to becoming municipal responsibilities.
With those remarks, I am looking forward, first of all, to my colleagues taking part in the second reading debate. Second, I am looking forward to the committee hearings that are going to be held.
Another point on the committee hearings is that I hope the minister will provide transportation costs for the people in northern Ontario and other areas of this province who may want to come to Toronto for the hearings and will not be able to afford it.
Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries. The bill substantially revises the Public Libraries Act.
I would like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the library system in Ontario is much improved in the last 10 years, and I would like to refer specifically to the region of Haldimand-Norfolk. Libraries at one time were sort of a forgotten thing and they deteriorated to a considerable extent, but in the past few years we have had a lot of input from the public locally and we now have a very good system. As this bill is making some major changes, I would like to bring to the attention of the minister some of the concerns of the library board in that area.
One concern is that we are going to a bigger region. I think the headquarters for the library in our area has always been St. Catharines, and now it is being directed to Hamilton and taking in a much larger area. I question whether we are going in the right direction. I feel it is going to make it more difficult to have access to the services.
One of the complaints relayed to me is the fact that where they had a service where they distributed the books on a regular basis to each individual library, I understand they are taking that away and now distributing to the central areas.
I will give some examples of the library services we have. We have in Simcoe a major improvement where they have taken an old jail and made it an excellent facility, along with the town hall, which incidentally was an old courthouse, and it is now the focal point of the downtown area of Simcoe. The elected people and the people on the library board deserve a lot of credit for their dedication and foresight in going ahead with this project, which is a major project. Incidentally, I believe it will be open in the next week or so and it is certainly going to be an asset to the municipality.
Dunnville is another area that opened a new library only in the last six months, and it was a very important issue to the local council. When the council made the decision to go ahead, it was a major expenditure. As a matter of fact, some of the local politicians paid heavily -- they were not re-elected -- because they made the decision to update that particular facility. It is excellent. It is going to serve that community well, it is going to be used for many generations and it is in a working position.
We also have smaller areas such as Caledonia, Cayuga, Selkirk, Port Rowan, Delhi and Port Dover. They all serve their community well, but they still need some specific attention, such as the delivery of updated materials, books and other services that they provide on a regular basis.
There was a concern with extending the area to a much larger area and the fact that their budget was being cut back and the service was not being applied. I hope the minister will give consideration to this because small area municipalities deserve that assistance so they can keep first-rate libraries. The demand for and use of libraries have increased according to the service that is provided. I hope this bill will continue to encourage that particular use.
Again, in the rural areas, where unemployment is perhaps running higher than it is in other parts of Ontario, the library does provide cheap recreation and learning ability and it is being used more and more.
I hope the minister will consider this. Instead of going larger, we should be going back to a regional library in the region of Haldimand-Norfolk and perhaps in other municipalities in Ontario, which I am sure would be more beneficial, if it were centralized within the region and going in that direction. I see the minister and the government are not going in that direction; they are going to larger areas. Perhaps we are going a step backward instead of a step forward.
I want to go on record as indicating we have made definite improvements in the library service to many parts of Ontario. I think we could encourage this still further by listening to local input for better service in the future.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate briefly in the debate this evening.
A couple of things bother me a bit. First, this is the first major piece of legislation introduced by this minister. It was to have been her great initiative to resolve some long-standing problems in the library system, but it strikes me that it is flawed severely in its presentation. She made reference in her opening remarks this evening to some substantive changes that are going to be proposed by the ministry when the bill goes to committee for hearings.
I noted the changes and I think it is too bad that a bill that was introduced in the Legislature just last spring is now going to be altered by the ministry before it proceeds with it. I say this because I think this is always the hallmark that somebody has not done his homework before the bill is presented. The ministry presented a piece of legislation that was flawed initially. Before it even gets through second reading, which is the debate in principle, the ministry is already proposing amendments.
It has been my experience here that this is a bad sign. It means that one gets things off on the wrong foot, that the ministry's own bureaucrats are admitting they fouled up before they even drafted the legislation. That is hardly the way to begin what is really an ambitious scheme such as is proposed in this legislation.
10 p.m.
Most members know librarians and people who serve on library boards and people who are interested in library services. They are hardly a revolutionary lot, but there appears to be a hornets' nest stirred up here. I cannot recall getting phone calls from people from my library board about any other issue before. As of about six o'clock tonight, they are more than a little angry. They have spent a long time in what the minister described previously as some kind of consultative process. They thought their opinions were being respected and they have found, when the legislation was introduced, and even yet as of today, their opinions have not been respected.
As have most members in southern Ontario, in my riding we have a very good system of library services, but they have run into difficulties in the last years. They share with almost every one of the ministries, in almost every kind of service one can think of, the chronic underfunding that has gone into schools and recreational facilities. Although they were on the verge of providing new services to people, several severe crimps were put in those plans by the fact that they did not have secured funding from the ministry to expand their programs.
In the last few years they have put together programs that address what might be called nontraditional library services, that is, they are into much more than just providing books for people. In my community they have attempted to expand library services from one central library source out into the community. They use bookmobiles and they have a great many facilities other than just books out of the library itself.
They have attempted to belong to a regional library system where they can trade back and forth different types of materials and make available on a broader basis a better selection of materials.
They have been faced with continuing chronic problems around getting funding and approval to provide different levels and kinds of service. I know many people who are very serious about the provision of library services are beginning to admit publicly the frustration they have felt privately for some time.
I know the intent of the ministry after a century may be to resolve some of these long-standing problems under one act. I want to put it to the minister tonight that I do not think this bill does that. It is with some regret I oppose the bill, but I think it needs some opposition. It needs to go off to committee with the minister having a clear understanding that these are not just family squabbles that have to be put out here. They are basic and fundamental problems that have been identified in the legislation and that are not really resolved by the minister saying this evening she wants to make some amendments now.
She has brought our attention to these matters and she may or may not resolve them when the bill goes to committee, but people are aware that these problems are identified in the legislation. It seems to me they are now judging her intent. What is the intent of the ministry? Does the minister intend to expand the concept of user fees? She leaves me in a small amount of confusion this evening when she says she is going to go off to committee and make some determination about what library services are. It seems to me she has put down the flag here.
She identified that, because there is limited government funding, for many library services there is going to have to be, and is now, some introduction of the concept of user fees on a broader scale than we are familiar with. We have seen this concept in our high schools and elementary schools, in our hospitals, in parks and recreation services. We know full well, once that concept is in place, it rapidly expands. It is a concept I find quite offensive, particularly for something like library services.
The traditional view I have of library services is that a library is a place where people are not going to be concerned about whether they can afford to use the materials. If they had concerns about whether they could afford them, they would probably buy or rent or whatever. The library is the place where people who use it are able to get information, books and services of a great variety without these things costing them a lot of money.
Libraries are a refuge for students -- elementary school, secondary school and university students. They are places where people in a local community who may not have access to university libraries, such as those that are in very close proximity to this building, can go and get similar kinds of information.
The concept is now in place that some kind of user fee would be there to block their usage. While it might not be quite as dramatic as the user fees in place in our hospitals for senior citizens in chronic care facilities, there is a parallel. The wrongness around user fees persists even though we might be talking about whether they can get a book or some software for a computer, a record, a film or whatever it might be. The minister needs to do some work on that.
The minister did attempt to defuse one or two of the arguments which have been put to me. They are considerable. One is the relationship of the library and the library board to the local council. The minister will have to do some pretty hard work in committee to clarify that stance. She appears to have decided that the library boards will be subservient in a number of ways to the local municipal council. She will have some problems with that. Other members feel very strongly about the matter of censorship and things which might happen on a municipal council.
Most of us who have served on municipal governments know that from time to time they have their off nights when they get off the business of looking after a municipality and go off on some small tangent. This is usually a relatively harmless exercise. If we were opening the channel so that a municipal council could decide it does not like certain kinds of books and it wanted to use its influence over a local library, that would be an unfortunate thing.
I hope that is not the minister's intent. In my heart I do not really feel it is, but when I read the legislation this afternoon, I saw she had opened that door. Whether we are talking about what kinds of services or books would be provided or about library budgets, she has opened an argument I am not too sure she wants to open. When the bill goes to committee for public hearings, the minister will have to rethink that part of it.
In her introductory remarks this evening, the minister proposed changing the word "may" in section 31 to the word "shall." I am not one who quibbles about the semantics of it, but I think that is necessary. Even more necessary than that, I would like to see what the ministry has in mind for funding library services for the foreseeable future. I am pleased it will give them some money, but even more pertinent is how much and for what kind of services.
One has to recognize there are different standards at work in Ontario. In many parts of the province, people do not have access to library services such as are made available in Metropolitan Toronto. The minister has to talk about that. The member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) was dead on; we have to talk about challenging some people to provide innovative ways to give people library services of high quality.
In many of our communities it is library services alone that provide access to information for many people. If one lives in downtown Toronto, for example, the libraries provided by the city and Metro are one of many sources of information for people to do research for projects such as getting straight information about how governments work. In many of our communities the sole source of information is library services. The standard is very different from the one found in downtown Toronto. The minister has to address herself to that concern.
A couple of other areas have to be addressed when the bill goes to committee. I am not sure the minister has a good grasp of the different library boards in Ontario. I am not sure she has understood the different circumstances at work and the needs. In her opening remarks, I listened to the minister briefly address the size of the board and the fluctuation she might be prepared to consider. That is one aspect, but not the only one. I will be interested to know what other aspects of the different kinds of boards and services required she is prepared to consider as the bill goes through the committee stages.
10:10 p.m.
The minister does have some problems with this legislation. I wish it were otherwise because I know a number of people who have contributed to the discussions over the last three or four years in the preparation of this. They are dedicated people and have in their own little hearts a great deal of concern. The provision of library services is incredibly important for a lot of people. Many of us who have alternatives to going to the public library perhaps do not find it our sole source, but for many people to learn a new language, to learn English or French, to learn about a great many things, the library is an important place.
I use my own library services. I use the one here at Queen's Park. I personally and other members of my family are very active users of the Oshawa public library system, which we think is a fine one. We are aware that the people in that system have put years of dedication and effort into trying to upgrade it, but have faced certain frustrations over the past few years that we had hoped would be rectified by the introduction of this legislation.
That is my frustration with it. I had anticipated, wrongly I guess, that the introduction of this legislation would resolve several problems that had been brought to my attention over the past few years. Now it turns out that the legislation, as it is currently proposed, does not do that.
The hope we have is that we will go off to committee and the minister will be reasonable, not just friendly, in accepting the representations that come in from people who are professionals in the field or who are users of the library system. We would hope she will not be hidebound by any definitions that may have been put forward by her bureaucrats, that she will listen carefully and openly to the depositions made before her at that committee.
I want to close by saying many of us who have listened to people on library boards and who work in libraries and have some interest in the library setup around Ontario over the past few years had anticipated these problems would be resolved by this legislation. I share the opinion of many of them that this does not help matters. In fact, it may make them worse in some degree. That was not the idea of this whole consultative process.
We will oppose the legislation this evening and we will oppose it when it comes up for a vote on second reading. We look forward to what transpires during the course of those committee sessions.
In her opening remarks this evening, the minister made note of three or four areas in which she will move amendments. I hope she will be amenable to others moving amendments in committee. I believe that if there are good intentions here to provide better library services and to resolve some disputes that have been simmering for quite some time, she will have to be that flexible.
This is hardly an ideological bill. It is one that has an ideological side to it, but the thrust of the bill generally is to resolve some practical, long-standing problems. The shame of it all is that we have not resolved those particular problems, even though we have gone through a consultative process.
Because they are not resolved in the bill, when it is presented for second reading, we are then dependent upon the minister going off to committee and making sure that in the first place people who have legitimate concerns about this piece of legislation have the opportunity to get here to Queen's Park to present their case.
As the member for Oakwood pointed out, that may be a relatively simple problem for those who live in Metropolitan Toronto, but for those from the far north or from eastern or southwestern Ontario, it is no mean feat to get to Queen's Park for a committee session.
I hope the minister will enter the committee stage of the bill with an open mind, will listen to the briefs put in front of her and will not be hidebound by the bill as she has presented it to us tonight. In conclusion, I maintain the bill itself is flawed in its present form and needs some more work.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries. I listened to the minister's opening statement and she painted a rosy picture that everybody in the province is going to accept the changes in the Public Library Act. I suggest she is trying to pre-empt herself because I do not think there are too many out there who may be happy with this piece of legislation.
I represent an area included in the Regional Municipality of Niagara Act and I can tell that the minister is not aware of the difficulties in the Niagara region through the regional library services that have been in force for a number of years and the financial difficulties in which the board has found itself in the past three or four years. A large amount of funds could not be accounted for.
Mr. Nixon: That is the one that went broke.
Mr. Haggerty: That is indeed the one that went broke.
One of the concerns of local library boards at that time was that they were not happy about what took place in the Niagara region and the circumstances that followed. They thought even then that the regional library services instituted some time ago were not accountable to local library boards and municipalities. In a sense, they were considered untouchable.
I am alarmed that the minister has not looked at this instance in the Niagara region and that this bill comes forward with further recommendations for regionalization. The minister is not satisfied with the Niagara regional library services now. She wants to set up a local library board service area. That is what she has in the bill. That would include the Niagara region.
I guess one bypasses the Hamilton area. That is a separate area board in itself. Then one takes the Niagara region to include part of Peel county. It seems ridiculous to enlarge a board of that nature, to bypass Hamilton and go around the Golden Horseshoe to include the areas of Peel and Halton. That has raised some concerns about local library services.
If the minister thinks she will provide better library service through this approach, she is wrong. If she appoints a library board of nine or 10, whatever the number may be, much of the cost will be for local library board members travelling to the centres in Halton and Peel, and it will cost the taxpayers money. They will be spending all their time on the road. I can imagine having someone appointed from Fort Erie who will have to drive approximately 60 or 75 miles to a board meeting. That is great. That is what we call very accommodating, if I can put it that way.
Mr. Nixon: One might as well drive to Toronto.
Mr. Haggerty: That is right.
Talking about centralization, I thought this government had learned in the past that this is not what the general public wants. It wants decentralization, more so than ever.
The minister is taking what municipalities have built up over the years in providing good library services in the Niagara region. I was a member of the county council, and I believe we were one of the first to have a county library service. We used to have a vehicle that went from school to school. Times have changed since the rural schools. We now have excellent library services in the schools.
I can think of some comments made by the government House leader, the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells), about libraries and community services. That is an area the government should be looking at which would save the taxpayers money and still provide a good service.
I can see this bill costing local taxpayers money because they will have no say in the expenditures. The minister is taking local autonomy away from the local municipalities. That is going to get out of hand, just as regional government did. The people in my area are fed up with the cost. They are getting services that are not much improved, but the cost is unbearable.
10:20 p.m.
My colleague mentioned the report of the special program review brought out by the then Treasurer of this province in 1976. I suppose he was giving signals then. At that time he withdrew $600 million from Ontario Hydro and said, "Enough is enough," with that board or commission, which was running away with huge expenditures because it can look to the province and say, "We have your support for it."
Nowhere in this bill does it tell me what the transition cost will be of implementing these larger boards. There has to be a cost factor. If I read between the lines, the minister is going to larger library boards at a larger cost, but the cost is going to be borne by the municipalities themselves.
I do not have to tell members of the difficulties that local councils have today even with education costs. It is great to have all these boards and commissions out of reach of local municipalities so they have very little say about expenditures, but when they send out the tax bill, who is the guy who gets rapped for it? The local councillor. So does the mayor. He has no control over that expenditure. As it is now, council has some control over it. Normally, councils do take into consideration library services. As much as the grants have been, they have provided excellent services.
Let me go back to what the member for Scarborough North thought should be done to save taxpayers money. With all the schoolrooms, the decline in enrolment in schools, the vacancies and the square footage in these schools, he had indicated we should be looking at making the schools the resource centres of the communities. I think he is right on.
As long as we are in the area of continuing education programs, what better place to have library services improved than in the local school system to which even the adults can have access. One high school in Port Colborne provides a library service for both the students and the general public, the community as a whole. It has worked out very well there. In fact, the parents go back to school, perhaps even with their children, and show a keener interest in the education system in Ontario.
It would be hard for me to support the intent of this bill, because it is not decentralizing but getting complete control. I can just see the bureaucracy that is going to be established at the head of this service area library board. I think the minister will agree with me that her intent is to have complete control over library services in the province. She is going to take away what little local autonomy is left to the local communities in their library services.
As I said, I have been a member of council. We have appointed excellent people to represent local library boards and they have provided a good service over the area. All this bill is going to do is to go backwards; maybe that is appropriate in this bicentennial year of Ontario. This is just a step to remind the people that this government is heading for complete control of almost everything, centralizing everything under one central authority, the government of Ontario. I do not think this is the right direction to go.
I represent Fort Erie. I often travel along the Niagara River and I happen to see the historical plaque that reminds us of the crossing of William Lyon Mackenzie, that great reformer of Ontario, who brought local government back to the people. This is what we should be looking at today.
Mr. Bradley: Power to the people.
Mr. Haggerty: That is right, power to the people. This government wants complete control over every body and soul without any concern for what the cost is going to be. I would suggest to the minister during this time of restraint that she should be taking a look at what our leadoff speaker said about the report of the special program review and what Darcy McKeough said seven or eight years ago. I think what he indicated still applies today.
I find it rather difficult to accept the proposal. I have a document here, a brief to the Ontario public libraries program review from administrators of medium-sized public libraries of Ontario. In the preamble it says:
"This proposal is based on two concepts which between them define the role of the local library and the relationship of the province to the library service in Ontario. The first concept is that the public library is essentially a local service reflecting community needs and priorities."
I suggest to the minister that this bill does not provide the thought or the intent of that preamble. It is a bill that has centralized almost everything within a certain ministry of this government. As a member who has had the impact of regional government shoved on to him, I think this bill is another step towards regionalization in Ontario.
One thing about the bill that I can perhaps agree with is that it says any smaller community of 10,000 or so may join a county library service board. I suggest this is the approach that should be taken. It should not be "shall," it should be "may." Normally a council takes a look at it and says, "If it is good for the public and if it is within the reach of our funding, we will adopt that principle."
But I suggest that in this transition of regional library services to centralized areas there must be a cost involved. I would like to know from the minister what the projected cost of this new library service is and what the share of the province is in relation to local costs to municipalities.
Mr. Nixon: Perhaps this would be a suitable time.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the House leader of the Liberal Party say it is an appropriate time for me to speak.
Mr. Nixon: I like your three-minute speeches.
Mr. Laughren: It is the only one of my speeches the member likes.
I am pleased to participate in the debate on the Public Libraries Act. There are many people out there who have expressed some very real concern, not about the intent of the minister on this bill but about the possible ramifications if this bill becomes the law of the land.
I was struck by the brief from the Ontario Library Association when it was expressing its appreciation for what the bill included. I thought it was particularly strange that the things with which it expressed satisfaction were things that a lot of associations take for granted.
For example, it expressed satisfaction that board meetings were to be open to the public. Since it is an organization that is funded totally by the public, most people accept that meetings would be open to the public. Concerning the fact that basic library services would be free of charge to all, I think since the service is provided 100 per cent by funding from the public, there obviously should not be a charge for it.
There is the fact that the development of larger units of service will be encouraged. Anybody who has followed the course of this government in its encouragement of large school boards and regional governments would understand that this is a fact of life in Ontario.
When I look at what the library association is expressing satisfaction about, I think, "I am glad they see that and they agree to that," but then when we get down to the areas where they have some concerns, they are very fundamental concerns. I cannot help but feel the minister should go back and take another look at the act.
When we debate this legislation again on Thursday evening, I will be very happy to remind the minister of some of those concerns.
On motion by Mr. Laughren, the debate was adjourned.
The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.