PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (CONTINUED)
THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support from all sides of the House. When we last debated this bill, I had been telling the minister, if memory serves me correctly, what I thought was being done correctly about the bill. Since I started out my speech on a very positive note with the good news, I thought that now I should tell the minister what I do not like about this bill.
I have three fundamental disagreements with the bill. I do not think there is any particular reason my concerns about the bill should coincide with the concerns of the professional librarians, but they do.
First of all, I believe the question of user fees is left too open for interpretation in this bill, beyond the whole question of whether or not libraries can charge a fee for borrowing books or for the use of reference books. I would not like to see that. I think it has been many decades since libraries had a mandate to charge beyond the very basic charge they have implemented for borrowing books.
To me, one of the most fundamental services in all communities is the libraries. In a funny way, and this is a personal opinion, they are more democratic in nature than even school boards or municipal councils. They are truly grass-roots organizations, or at least they should be. It bothers me a great deal to see the minister bringing in a bill that leaves open-ended the kind of user fees that can be imposed upon the borrowing public.
The second problem I see, and it is perhaps my major concern, is the power of municipal councils. I know this has been raised before. I live in a very small, sparsely populated community of 10,000 people. The library board in that community has always felt it played a major voluntary role. I sometimes wonder whether the minister has forgotten about the voluntary nature of library boards; they truly are one of the last volunteer organizations. They receive, at least in my area, not a penny for the services they offer.
If the minister is going to say that from now on the municipal council will tell the library board, line by line, what it is allowed to spend, why would any library board take itself seriously? Why would any library board regard its role as important, of any significance whatsoever?
If the minister wants the library boards simply to rubber-stamp what the municipal councils decide they should do, then the minister should direct the municipal councils to form committees to help manage their libraries. She should not play this con game, telling the library boards, "We want you to continue in your voluntary role, to serve without pay and simply do what the municipal council directs you to do, line by line, in your library budget."
The minister cannot have it both ways. She is going to undermine the library board service, which I consider to be one of the finest voluntary services in Ontario, if she says to those people, "From now on, the municipal council will decide on every single expenditure you make."
I am not concerned with the global figures, because I understand the municipal councils do provide substantial funding to library boards and therefore should have some control over the global budgeting of the library board. What I cannot come to grips with is the minister saying, "We are going to give the municipal council control over every single line of your budgeting." I think that is simply horrendous.
It is going to allow the municipal council to say, "We think you are buying the wrong kind of books." I hope I am not reading too much into this, because I do not mean simply to raise a red flag; but what if the municipal council says: "We think your books are simply too liberal" -- by that I mean small-l liberal, of course. "We think they are too liberated. We do not like all these books on women's liberation. We do not like these books on liberation theology."
I find it very offensive that the municipal councils could tell the library boards: "We do not want you to spend so much money on these kinds of books. Put more of your money into building new shelves, offering a children's program or whatever." I find that very offensive.
If I sat on a library board, I can tell members what I would say to the minister and the local municipal council. I would say: "If you want me to serve as a library board member, do not undercut all my decision-making powers. Do not take away from me the very reason I became a member of this library board." That is what the minister is doing.
8:10 p.m.
I do not know if the minister inherited this bill and is simply carrying it through the way it was handed to her. I have no way of knowing how that works within cabinet. If the minister did inherit this bill, then she will have no better opportunity to show her independence of mind than by saying: "This is something we want to change. It may have been well intentioned, but it is not the way we want the libraries to work in Ontario."
I could go back a long way in history about libraries, about the whole principle of community-funded libraries and the independence of libraries from government. It is terribly important to continue that.
I really believe the minister is going to undermine the independence of library boards and, perhaps even more important, she will undermine the morale of library boards across the province. I have talked to librarians who have told me this is it for them, that if the minister wants to bring in a law that says municipal councils can determine line-by-line budgeting of the library boards, then let the municipal councils run the libraries in the municipalities and let us stop playing this game of pretending there is useful role for library boards if the government is going to take all the decision-making away from them.
I believe the minister is not going to accomplish what she probably would like to accomplish with this bill. I ask her to consider that.
The third major problem I have with the bill has to do with the whole funding question. The minister uses wording such as in subsection 30(1), where the bill reads, "The minister may make a grant to a board" for something called "library purposes." What else would one be making grants to a library board for, if not for library purposes?
It is the word "may." There seems to be no ongoing obligation or commitment by the minister to fund the library boards. If my memory serves me correctly, about 20 per cent of the funding of libraries comes from the province. I stand to be corrected by the minister, but I believe it is around 20 per cent that is funded by the province for libraries. If she says this funding "may" be apportioned by the ministry, she is signalling to the library boards across the province that they had better do exactly as the province believes they should do, or that "may" will become very important to them.
Mr. Gordon: Amend it to "shall."
Mr. Laughren: "The minister shall" -- the member for Sudbury quite appropriately interjects that perhaps an amendment should be put during the committee stage. I would not want to get into clause-by-clause, because I know the Speaker is sitting there like an eagle waiting to pounce on me if I should stray from the principles of the bill and start talking about any special clause.
Mr. Breaugh: What kind of eagle?
Mr. Laughren: Like an eagle.
Mr. Breaugh: What kind of eagle? Answer the question.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to a bald eagle. I want you to know that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Thank you.
Mr. Laughren: I only reassured you on that in case you cut me off.
I do not know how to make my case any clearer to the minister. What is at stake here is the basic autonomy of the library boards. That is terribly important. There should be the autonomy that has existed for some time. That autonomy must be maintained. If the minister erodes the autonomy of the library boards, she will lose something that is quite precious to Ontario. I know there has been the odd example where the auditing perhaps did not occur the way it should have, in which case there has been the odd problem. but I do not believe --
Mr. Grande: Only one.
Mr. Laughren: The member for Oakwood tells me there was only one. I do not believe legislation is structured for one problem. What one does is look at whether a service has been provided to the people of Ontario that is adequate and basically problem-free. If that is the case, why would the minister tamper with it? There is an old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Mr. Breaugh: Who would say something like that? What a trite, inconsequential saying that is.
Mr. Laughren: I think it was the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) who first coined that phrase. He said, 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
It seems to me the library system has served the province extremely well. I do not know why the minister is intent on taking away from the library boards the autonomy they currently have.
I would ask the minister if she really thinks there will be an ongoing high quality of voluntary service to the library boards if she guts their responsibilities. I do not know why she would expect there would be.
I would not serve on a library board if I were approached, which is unlikely, to serve on one. I would ask, "What are my duties?" "Well, basically your duties are to spend the money the municipal council says you must spend line by line." As a person, I would not want to serve on that library board and I know all sorts of people who feel the same way in the library community.
Mr. Gordon: When was the last time you were in a library?
Mr. Laughren: I wish the member for Sudbury would speak up because I have a funny feeling he is on my side in this case, but he is mumbling in the minister's ear and I cannot hear everything he is saying.
I do not blame him for trying to whisper in the minister's ear and I do not want to pry if it is anything private or personal, but I really would like to know if it is something supporting my argument.
There is silence on the other side.
Hon. Ms. Fish: Not so far.
Mr. Gordon: I will be kind to you. I will not repeat it.
Mr. Laughren: Kind to whom? The minister or me?
Mr. Gordon: To you.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased about one thing, and that is that this bill is going to committee and there will be an opportunity for any number of people to have some input into it and to make changes.
I hope the minister will be open-minded enough to accept some amendments. Perhaps, if she does not feel she wants to be upstaged, she will even bring in her own amendments. We would have no quarrel with that. We have no sense of jealousy about ideas in this chamber, particularly those of us who have been around a while, who have long learned that pride of ownership in ideas is not very important in the Ontario Legislature.
I will not say what I was going to say; I would only get the member for Sudbury angry and I do not want to do that.
I will conclude simply by saying to the minister the most important issue here is the autonomy of the library boards. I feel very strongly that the library boards in Ontario have served the province extremely well. They have managed to keep a balance between what some people regard as a system that caters too much to the changing times and what other people think does not provide a strong enough sense of our history.
Library boards, by some strange mixture, have been able to have a library system that most of us and most municipalities in Ontario are very proud of. I would say to the minister in closing that she should not believe, because library boards are progressive and believe the people out there have a right to have in their libraries what is current and what is topical, that all municipal councils believe the same thing.
8:20 p.m.
The people who serve on library boards, this may sound trite, are believers in books and ideas. I do not think I am being unfair to municipal councils when I say that is not what really motivates a lot of municipal councillors across the province. It is different things. I do not mean they are wrongly motivated, but simply that their motivation is not books and ideas. What is the motivation of library board members? Books and ideas. That is why they serve on library boards. We do not want to trade one off for the other. The independent library board is too important to twin with the motivations and ideas of the municipal council.
I simply conclude by urging the minister to think very seriously about giving that kind of financial control, because when we give financial control, we give control over ideas as well. I ask the minister to reconsider that part of this act.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak on second reading of this bill, and I am delighted the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) is here, because he is always so helpful in these debates.
I want to congratulate the minister for bringing forward this bill, much of which I heartily approve. We are approving on second reading the parts about which we are not so keen, so that as it goes to committee there may be an opportunity to improve it by amendment.
I think the minister has been a bit lucky. Her predecessors have sat through the endless meetings that have gone on for years now in an attempt to bring forward a bill that would be acceptable on all sides, not only in this House but also in the community, and seen as something that will benefit the public libraries of the province.
The founder of our library system was Andrew Carnegie, an American who was born in Scotland. He did more for the library system of this province than this Legislature, with its hands in the Treasury, is going to be able to do even with this act.
Someone recently wrote a book about the Carnegie libraries. I have not read it, but I have heard some interesting reviews and comments about the book. Evidently, Carnegie had to leave school at age 11 and worked very hard. The only access he had to books was his uncle's library. He used that to such good effect that he ended up sort of ruler of the universe, if millions of dollars put him in that category.
Mr. Laughren: How about Dale?
Mr. Nixon: Dale is the person who made the honourable member what he is.
Carnegie, never forgetting that his Scottish ancestry was an important part of his character, undertook to fund some libraries in his own community in Scotland. According to the stories, some Scottish people in this province learned he was subsidizing and building these new libraries and wrote him a letter saying, "Listen, we would like your help too."
With one paid assistant, Carnegie was able to distribute many millions of dollars to build new buildings and assist municipalities across the United States, Canada, Scotland and England. They were built perhaps better than he knew. Some of the finest buildings in this province were built with money he provided. Often the local municipality assisted only in providing the land. Sometimes a generous land owner in the community provided the additional largess, getting his name on the cornerstone along with that of Mr. Carnegie.
When we come to do a thing such as this, we have to have an elaborate bureaucracy with a peripatetic deputy heading the whole thing, all of them paid nothing less than about $72,000 each. Perhaps some of the people under the gallery are paid a bit less than that, but we do think a little differently now. We cannot say that even our assistance to libraries does not have within it that built-in overhead without which the government of Ontario has learned it cannot draw breath.
I cannot be too critical, because on many occasions in recent months I have been among the supplicants in the minister's boardroom, drinking her lukewarm coffee, smiling and being as nice as I could be, and in most instances it has worked reasonably well. But, as usual, the question is, "Susan, what have you done for us lately?" And we will get around to that.
I remember about five years ago, perhaps a bit longer, when the present Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) was Minister of Labour. Was there ever a situation like that? Yes. Our arenas were found to be faulty and perhaps even dangerous, and without any difficulty at all we were able to pump about $60 million a year into tearing down these old buildings, which might have been trussed up and shored up, and building new ones. In fact, in some communities, such as Norwich, we have built some of the finest edifices, which outclass even the local liquor store when it comes to architectural design and efficiency, though not quite when it comes to popularity.
I am suggesting that if the minister were to have this kind of clout with her cabinet colleagues -- that is not quite the word I should use in connection with the minister; I will think of another one soon -- she might be able to persuade them to consider the library buildings themselves as somewhere in the same area of importance as the local arenas.
The young people get up early in the morning with their mothers and fathers, go and practise hockey and play late into the night. Without the arena in the South Dumfries area, the style of life there would change dramatically. Yet our local council, with the assistance and the leadership of the local library board, has continued the old library, which was originally funded by Carnegie, as an institution that has kept up to date and does serve the community very well indeed.
In this I go along entirely with the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), who was very complimentary of the library boards, which often work under difficult circumstances. In our area they are usually working with the support of local council; I would not say anything but the full support, but I am aware that in many communities such is not the case, and some councillors feel that if they are having budgetary problems the easiest place to cut is in the library budget.
I am also concerned about the independence of the library boards. The fact that the boards are appointed concurrently with the term of the council probably is one of the points that emphasizes this.
My own feeling, however, is not as extreme as that of the member who has just spoken. I feel the commitment to community service and the goodwill on all sides is such that we are going to have well-funded library facilities in our communities. I do not worry about that nearly as much as I worry about the newly established library service boards in part II of the bill. I will talk about that in a moment.
As we debate this bill, which we hope is going to serve as the administrative basis of the libraries of the province for a while so we are not going to be back making far-reaching changes in the near future, we have to look at the beginnings, what Carnegie did himself with his own money, with one bureaucrat working for him administering a library program that covered the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
The minister might think about that when she looks at the establishment she will have to have to serve the administrative practicalities of this bill.
I am also very glad we have not been so hidebound and restricted that we say that in each community there has to be a board that is composed thus and so. As a matter of fact, the minister has made provisions for union boards with separate cities involved in county boards -- almost every sort of permutation and combination that would be viable in the community. In other words, what we have we can pretty well keep, with the flexibility to move together to improve service by having the economies of scale.
8:30 p.m.
I am always wary of anybody pointing out the economies of scale, because our experience in the provision of service with public funds means that the bigger they are the more expensive they are -- on something more than a geometric progression; more like an exponential progression. I am not sure what that means other than that I think it means that as it gets bigger it costs a lot more than what one would normally expect. Certainly that has been true in any kind of regional government or restructured government I have ever observed; but that is another debate and another problem.
While I talk about hoping this bill will serve the library community for a fairly lengthy time, we are all aware that more recent changes were not that good. They brought forward all sorts of terrible problems, financial ones to begin with; mention has already been made of the fiasco involving the Niagara and southern Ontario regional board, which got into some unbelievable financial problems. We cannot imagine that such a disastrous situation could occur to a minister of the crown, with all the auditors and supervisors available to him or her. The disaster set back the confidence in these larger supervising boards -- perhaps I should not call them supervising boards; these boards that give generalized service.
I personally have real misgivings that the service areas the minister contemplates are going to be anything but disastrous white elephants if they are going to have large numbers of provincial appointees, many of whom will tend to be supporters of the government. Not all of them will be. There will be a few show Liberals and, heaven forbid, a few show socialists. We do not need those in library boards, surely -- well, perhaps a few. We know the way those things are done.
Just because they happen to be good, little tame Tories does not mean they cannot read in each instance, so they would certainly serve on library boards; but they would tend to look for direction from the minister. In case they do not look carefully enough, the minister has section 39(c) in here -- if I can just turn it up -- which says:
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council" -- which means the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) -- "may make regulations respecting the establishment, organization, management, operation, premises and rules of public libraries."
When it gets right down to it, we know who the top librarian is, for the time being.
I, for one, am prepared to place my confidence in the judgement of the minister and her multitudinous advisers; but when we look at these supervising boards covering these large areas carved out of somebody's imagination from the geography of Ontario, it does not make much sense to me. They are far too big to have any local relationship, even though better than half the board members -- one more than half the board members in some cases -- owe their appointments to the local municipalities or collections of municipalities.
When we talk about a community like my own, South Dumfries, with a population of 5,000 to 6,000, its input into the regional board is going to be something less than zilch. They do not worry about that too much, because the local boards have fended for themselves very well indeed. As a matter of fact, our local library is even air-conditioned, which is something the local member's office certainly is not; but that is something else.
I simply express my concern that so much of the power remains centralized with the ministry and with the emanation of the ministry, which in every respect is this regional service area board. The fact there is membership from the community on that board as well is a mitigating factor which I am prepared to recognize. However, as far as the local libraries are concerned, I still feel they might even prefer to have centres of library assistance established, let us say in Toronto, Hamilton, Brantford, Kitchener, London and so on, and to turn to those the way we turn to medical centres for situations that cannot be handled locally.
I am not at all sure the alternative selected by the minister and her advisers is the best in the long run, but it is one that has been selected from a cafeteria of six or eight alternatives. We are prepared to support it, indicating some concern for the choice she has made.
As far as the funding is concerned, I have already indicated that in some instances the library services are much too cramped in the present facilities. We know and we hope, in the long run, that we are going to be using Wintario funds -- if there is anything left over after we build the William G. Davis dome -- in extending grants to build larger libraries or extensions to libraries.
I hope we are able to maintain these architectural treasures that were bought and paid for by Carnegie 50 to 60 years ago, or even longer ago than that, and that we are not going to say, "Well, that is no good," push it out of the way and build some sterile outfit somewhere else in the city that will perhaps not be as attractive to the community.
I want to go on record as favouring the use of public funds and Wintario funds, which I consider to be public although a lot of people over there do not; they think those are funds that came out of nowhere and can be spent on all sorts of things. I hope we are going to have a program that will expand our library system.
I want also to point out that with the present computer systems that are growing so rapidly, just exploding in size and cost, there is no reason for us to feel we have to have every kind of reference material, not even in the libraries in the major towns across Ontario.
In our experience, even in a small library serving a rural area, if there is some reference needed one may not be able to walk in and have it presented in five minutes, but within half a day they can have quite esoteric material available if it is asked for specifically. Through computer connections and so on, it is more readily available than most of us think.
We have to be a bit careful of the idea of building a library large enough to hold everything the librarians would like. It is obvious that as populations have grown since the war the library facilities have been crammed more and more tightly into the traditional library buildings, which were built so long ago and which have served the community so well.
We are going to be spending more money than perhaps we envisage at present on maintaining and bringing our library services up to date. I agree with those who have expressed concerns. We want to have their independence understood, and we hope local councils are providing funds in sufficient and growing amounts, but they still have to recognize that appointed library boards have independent responsibilities that are important to a large segment of the community. Without their work as volunteers performing this service the communities would certainly be poorer places.
I look forward to the discussions in which the minister will be involved when this bill goes to committee. I believe those people who have been immersed in the library systems of Ontario, not only the librarians but also the volunteers who as citizens have taken on this responsibility, will look forward to a chance to express their views to the minister and her people and to all of us as interested citizens who feel this area is one of public service wherein we cannot fail.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and say a few words on this bill. In truth, I may not present anything new, and perhaps I will not be saying it in a better way than any of the others who have taken part in the debate, but it is an issue about which I feel fairly strongly. That is why I wanted to get up and express my point of view.
I suspect the roots of this bill before us now, in which the main issue is making the library board more accountable to the council, come to us from the strong feeling among municipal people, going back a couple of decades, that there was such a proliferation of boards, some of them only partially accountable to council and some not at all accountable to council, that the council itself had very little authority over the expenditure of its money and certainly little control over where that money went after it was distributed.
My political experience is mainly that of being on municipal council for some 20 years, and I can recall the tremendous debates that took place in the municipal conventions, as I am sure in later days the minister can, with regard to these quasi-independent boards over which the councils had little or no authority.
In general, when we moved to regional government other changes were made, whether it was the planning board of the council which was semi-independent or the children's aid societies which still are semi-independent. In many areas, under regional council, the council did have more direct authority and many of the local boards disappeared. Generally, I think that was good. I had the opportunity to sit on a library board for a couple of years and I feel that any more direct accountability to council, or to put it another way to have library boards subject to council, is a move backwards.
As my colleague the member for Nickel Belt said, people I know and have associated with on library boards are really a different breed of people. Most of them have a very different sense of values from people on council, and that is not said in a derogatory way about council members. I think it is generally true to say that members of library boards are much more modest people than members of council. They are more unassuming. They are quieter. They are not a battling breed like many of us were on council and are in this chamber. Generally speaking, I think they are more intellectual. They are not nearly as subject to public opinion or concerned about popularity as people on councils.
I would like to see it stay that way. I am conscious of the feelings of many people on councils towards library boards. I can recall one member of council, on one occasion when we were talking about the amount of funds that would be transferred to library boards, who said:
"I do not know why we have libraries at all. We do not use public funds to provide television for people, or radio for people, or facilities to get the news, so why do we have a library at all? If people want to read, why do they not buy their own books?"
That sort of attitude may not be the dominant attitude on councils, but it is certainly prevalent to a very substantial degree; so as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has said, that is often the first place they look to cut funds.
The main purpose of this bill is to put library boards more under the thumbs of the municipal councils. That is done in at least three ways in this bill. One is by the appointment procedures which now come under the jurisdiction of council much more than under the former act.
Second, the very fact the terms of library board members coincide with the terms of the members of council is a clear indication to council that when they change the library board should change. I am inclined to think there should be more continuity there than that.
Subsection 24(2) of this bill refers to the budget. The allocation of funds to a library board becomes much more subject to council than at the present time by this subsection, which says the council may transfer the money and the board shall be subject to any terms and conditions that the council imposes."
In those ways, at least, the library board is going to be more accountable or more under the jurisdiction and authority of the local council than it has been in the past.
It bothers me because of my knowledge of and association with library boards. They are a quiet group, a group that does not generally make itself heard much or speak out loudly. The library boards in my area have come out in rather strong opposition to this and we know the Ontario Library Association has as well. The very fact they have taken this position causes me to think they are right.
Of course, they may have some vested interest, but I do not think the people on library boards are the kind of people who put their own vested interests, their terms on the board, ahead of what they feel is the need to have an independent and good library system for the public.
I also share the view of the boards and the library association that there should be some provision, at least in the communities, the towns and cities of this province, that there be a librarian as the chief executive officer. It seems to me this is perhaps a move more towards the consideration of funding and financial management than having a library that is independent and serves the needs of the public generally.
I also share the concern of the library boards and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk when they express concern about the large library service area. I think they will be unwieldy and unmanageable. We have a situation existing in Niagara where the regional library board went into debt for almost $1 million.
I think if we get them much larger than that, and have them covering areas from Hamilton right down through the Niagara Peninsula where there is little community of interest, not only will they not provide the community service that is needed but they will also become more unwieldy and even more difficult to control from a financial point of view.
Our party feels that on balance this bill does more harm than good to our library system. Although I know it will be going to committee, we feel it does not deserve support on second reading. When it gets to committee, I hope the minister will be susceptible to the arguments put forward by the library boards, by those who over the years have been trusted with providing a library system. They have done a very good job in providing that library system and want to be given the authority to go on doing that commendable job for the public.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member for Windsor-Walkerville.
[Applause]
Mr. Newman: Do not applaud; just throw money.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments concerning Bill 93, the library bill. The comments I will make are those sent to me by the Windsor Public Library Board. A copy of the communication has been directed to the minister, so I am sure she is aware of it.
8:50 p.m.
For the record, I would like to read two communications sent to me by the board. The first is a letter to the minister, dated September 20, 1984. It reads:
"During the Treasurer of Ontario's presentation of the Ontario budget in May 1984, the need for restraint was emphasized, particularly on local wages. The Treasurer also announced his proposal to limit the increase in provincial grants -- that is, transfer payments -- to five per cent.
"The provincial grant for public libraries was last established in 1982, and since no change in the grant rate has been made for 1983 or 1984, the province has placed even greater restraint on the public libraries in this province. The provincial grant received by the Windsor Public Library Board in 1982 represented 11.04 per cent of the board's total expenditures. Without an adjustment to the grant rate for 1983 and without an increase in 1984, provincial support will fall 20.7 per cent below the 1982 level.
"During this same period, the demand for services from this library system has increased by more than 13 per cent. Not only has this board experienced significant demand for more service and is responding with proportionately reduced resources, the provincial support for the Windsor Public Library is dwindling to the lowest level in years. The members of the Windsor Public Library board, by resolution, urge you to implement a revision to the provincial grant for public libraries in keeping with the Treasurer's proposal of five per cent in 1984."
It is signed by the secretary-treasurer of the Windsor Public Library.
It was followed up approximately one month later, on October 12, with another communication. This communication was sent directly to me and it reads:
"The Windsor Public Library board in its last meeting concluded discussions of Bill 93, a proposed Public Libraries Act, 1984. The board adopted a resolution to forward the enclosed brief to the Honourable Minister of Citizenship and Culture as comment and recommendation respecting Bill 93. The board has requested that it be notified when this bill is to be sent to committee.
"Thank you for your interest in the proposed revisions to the public library services of Ontario."
It is signed by the secretary-treasurer of the library board, Fred C. Israel.
The brief as sent to the minister is as follows. It is quite detailed and I would like to put it on the record so other communities that may not have received the recommendations of the Windsor Public Library board can evaluate them in their discussions.
The brief reads: "The Windsor Public Library board has reviewed Bill 93, a proposed Public Libraries Act, 1984, which was introduced to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in June.
"A new act has been the focus of countless hours of thought, planning and debate within the public library community of this province for many years. The proposed act reflects many of the proposals submitted during the exhaustive public libraries program review and the response period. It permits a significant advance for public libraries in this province and will serve as a base for future development.
"As a further contribution to the consultative process, the Windsor Public Library board submits the following comments on the provisions of Bill 93:
"The board regrets that the provincial policy statement on public library services as developed during the public libraries program review and which received ministry approval at that time was omitted in the preamble to Bill 93. It is recommended that consideration be given to including the provincial policy statement on public library services in Bill 93.
"This board welcomes the retention of the corporate status of the public library board." That is subsection 3(3). "This board expresses its concern about the possible conflict which may arise as a result of section 9 respecting the method for making appointments. The proposed act places the school boards and their nominees in a secondary position. Either the school boards should make appointments directly or the municipal council should make all appointments. This board, aware of the many responsibilities and demands placed on elected officials and noting that the mayor of Windsor has exercised the option permitted in the Municipal Act, disagrees with the provision to increase the number of elected officials that may be appointed to the board." That deals with subsection 10(2). "It is recommended that clause 10(2)(a) be amended to provide two less than a majority of the board" -- that is, members.
"This board is most concerned about the possible impact of subsection 10(3) in that a complete change in the membership of the board would be possible. The advantages of continuity must outweigh the neatness of coincidence with the municipal election. It is recommended that the act provide for staggered appointments to the board, one third each year.
"The board welcomes the requirement for public advertisement for appointments to the board." That is in subsection 11(1). "It is recommended that the phrase 'as may be appropriate' be deleted from subsection 11(2) and other paragraphs throughout the bill, since this phrase weakens and confuses the intent of the bill.
"The board finds no rationale for the provisions of subsection 14(1), especially when there is provision in the act for a secretary of the board. It is recommended that the duties of the secretary" -- subsection 15(3) -- "be expanded to include the responsibility to call the first meeting of a board in a new term.
"The board finds no rationale or necessity for a chairmanship for the three-year term" -- subsection 14(2). "It is recommended that the act include a provision to permit the election of a chairman annually.
"The board welcomes the greater definition of the responsibilities of its chief executive officer." That is in subsection 15(2).
"The board regrets most strongly the absence of the term 'librarian' or the requirement for a librarian in the provisions of Bill 93. This board supports its professional staff and the services which they alone provide to this community. It is recommended that the abolition of professional staff and service from the public libraries of Ontario be reconsidered before this bill proceeds through the assembly.
9 p.m.
"The board recognizes and welcomes the clarification provided by subsection 16(3) on meetings. The board finds no rationale for the specific involvement by a city council to pay travel expenses for board members." That is in section 18.
"It is recommended that an annual estimate of the library board as submitted to council contain provisions for the reimbursement of travel expenses by board members.
"The board finds no rationale for the provision 'with the consent of council.'" That is in section 19. "The requirement to submit annual estimates to council would include the necessity to budget for such purposes.
"It is recommended that the requirement to obtain council approval in section 19 be deleted. The board opposes legislation which is confusing or open to dispute, particularly clause 20(d). If a board has the power and/or duty to operate a museum or gallery or other special service, then that power should be explicit. It is recommended that clause 20(d) be revised to be explicit as to the powers and responsibilities of a local board.
"The board welcomes the clarifications provided by section 23. This board has written previously to recommend that the word 'books' be replaced by the word 'materials' in subsection 23(2).
"The board opposes strongly the inclusion of the limitation 'subject to any terms or conditions that the council imposes' in subsection 24(2). It is recommended that the words 'subject to any terms or conditions that the council imposes' be deleted from subsection 24(2) of Bill 93.
"The board is most concerned about the implication of section 28 and believes that it would be contrary to the Constitution. This section would appear to be in conflict with subsection 16(3). It is recommended that section 28 be rewritten to protect the privacy of personal records of the board and the records of matters which are under negotiation and, most importantly, to protect the confidentiality of users' circulation records.
"In Thames region, the Ontario library board would be composed of 23 people. The needs and concerns of the large library, the principal provider of resources and services to the region, would be overwhelmed at a meeting where it has only one vote and yet may represent half the population of the region to be served. It is recommended that the composition of the Ontario library board (section 33) reflect more adequately the population distribution which it is intended to serve.
"The board finds no definition or rationale for the phrase, 'other information providers' in clause 34(1)(a). It is recommended that the phrase 'other information providers' be deleted from clause 34(1)(a).
"The board expresses its strong opposition to the scope of clause 39(c), as this would seem to override and negate any and all powers of the local board. It is recommended that clause 39(c) be deleted from Bill 93.
"The board expresses its concern for all reference to a provincial responsibility for programs. Servants and services have been removed from the proposed act. It is recommended that a revised Public Libraries Act should reflect the provincial government's commitment to the provision of public library service and include its responsibility for expert staff, funding of services and administrative control.
"The board wishes to present these comments to any Legislative Assembly committee to which this bill is assigned and it is requested that the Windsor Public Library Board be notified when Bill 93 is forwarded to the committee for consideration.
"Respectfully submitted by R. V. Love, chairman, Windsor Public Library Board."
I read all this into the record simply because my responsibilities here keep me moving around and I may not have an opportunity to make these comments when the bill gets into a clause-by-clause discussion. I am sure if representatives of the Windsor Public Library Board are notified, they would be more than pleased to present their points of view on each of the items I have raised.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, lest the government House leader get a little concerned about my intentions, I will speak briefly on Bill 93. We in this caucus are taking the counsel of our friend the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), but I wanted to add a couple of comments of my own in connection with this act respecting public libraries.
I personally view the public library system of Ontario as something important and vital to the quality of life in Ontario. For a number of years as a student, I spent more than a regular amount of time buried deeply in the university libraries of this province, in the good old days when even they were funded to a healthy level.
Visiting the Douglas library at Queen's University the other night, I saw times have changed. One of my favourite research libraries at the university level is still managing to meet a considerable aspect of its responsibility, though everywhere I hear complaints that the minister of all education is not as generous as some of her predecessors in these matters in supporting the university. That is just what I hear. We would not want to sidetrack ourselves on that debate tonight.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: There are some realities.
Mr. Conway: Oh, she is here. The minister says there are some realities and, of course, she is quite correct.
The public libraries of the great riding of Renfrew North do a particularly good job of meeting the responsibilities we have set for them and which the community expects of them. Just this past Saturday I was privileged to meet the board of the Pembroke Public Library, which is one of the very fine libraries, not just of eastern Ontario but of the province as a whole.
I want to say at the outset it has been my experience and observation over the nine years and some months of my public responsibility in this place that the members of the library boards of the province, certainly in my part of Ontario, are among the most diligent, thoughtful and hardworking of people when it comes to the discharge of their mandate. I really mean that. I cannot think of a library board in my riding that is not made up 100 per cent of very dedicated and civic-minded citizens.
9:10 p.m.
In all cases of which I have any knowledge or acquaintance, it is a board to which everyone listens, a board that does great work without any controversy of which I can think. I do not suggest this is the case everywhere because I can think of a situation in the Niagara Peninsula some years ago where there was some controversy.
However, as I see it from my experience, people who work as members of boards of public libraries are very important to the community. They do an extremely good job. I think they should be thanked by members of this Legislature and by the community beyond. I appreciate the opportunity, in speaking on second reading of Bill 93, to say thank you to the scores of men and women who serve on the public boards in the great county of Renfrew. Those people have expressed a real interest and concern about what was going to develop as a result of the ongoing review of the current legislation.
I have been trying to allay some of the suspicions by saying the new minister is a rising star in the Conservative galaxy of Ontario. She is a star of some considerable prominence, if for no other reason than that she is so closely allied in public policy matters to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) of this province. As a result, she is known to have considerable influence in the inner councils of the Ontario government.
I have encouraged my library boards and others interested in the matter respecting the review of our library policy to take heart in the fact that the minister is influential, experienced, progressive and, by dint of her very considerable municipal experience, understanding of many of the pressures that face the local library boards.
I must give the minister some real credit. I think she has crafted her legislation well in the light of the creative tensions I know are extant as a result of the Bassnett review of library policy. I want to congratulate in a very generous way my friend the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) for the way in which she has --
Mr. Kerrio: She is not smiling. She is expecting something.
Mr. Conway: I think the members opposite know I am a reasonable and evenhanded member of the Legislature. I am quite willing to mete out praise where it is due.
Mr. Bradley: Even when the praise is fulsome.
Mr. Conway: To me, the praise is justified. If the Minister of Citizenship and Culture does not believe me, she should ask the minister of all education. She is particularly well qualified to comment on my fair-mindedness.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Absolutely. Shall I comment now or later?
Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister of Education reconsider and run?
Mr. Conway: My friend the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and I have two $100 bills in American funds as the startup for the leadership campaign of the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson). When she said this race needed leadership, brains, verve and a combative spirit, my friend the member for St. Catharines and I believed her.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I said it needed a woman candidate.
The Acting Speaker: I remind the member we are dealing with Bill 93.
Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, we want to encourage the honourable minister of all education to take her own rhetoric at full sail, to enter this race and to give it verve, brains and leadership. If Darcy McKeough would not respond, that is no reason why she should not respond. I believe there is an articulate, intelligent, right-wing position in that party and I think the minister of all education is most qualified to give that leadership to that particular wing of this --
Hon. Miss Stephenson: And now back to the bill.
Mr. Bradley: I will deliver the St. Catharines delegation.
Mr. Conway: Getting back to the bill, I reiterate that my friend the member for St. Catharines and I have two $100 bills in American funds as a startup for the leadership campaign of the minister of all education. It is not too late. A leader must be a leader and, in our view, she is it.
I congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Culture on the very good balancing act she has managed in Bill 93. I want to say that most sincerely. There are a couple of concerns that were drawn to my attention on recent occasions by people like the membership of the board and the staff at the Pembroke Public Library and elsewhere in the great county of Renfrew, Deep River and Petawawa, to be more specific.
The first concern, and it has been dealt with, has to do with subsections 10(2) and 10(4) of the bill. As I indicated earlier, it has been my experience that in all the library boards of my acquaintance, there has been no controversy. There has really been an attitude of "Go and do your good work." We do not expect to have any difficulty with the management of the mandate.
I really cannot think of a situation in my nine, almost 10 years' experience as a member of the Legislature, where there has been anything but the happiest and most positive of relationships between local governments and our public library boards. There are very good people on those boards who, as I said earlier, do an exceptionally good job in managing our local libraries.
There is the question now about the fact that there will be concurrence between the boards in their entirety and the municipal council as far as tenure of office is concerned. When last Saturday morning the Pembroke library board indicated they thought that to be a most unwise policy because it would break the continuity in the management of the board, I thought they were talking good sense.
It is possible there might be a situation where a great unhappiness develops in the relationship between the boards and the municipal councils. I think that is very much the exception and not the rule. On the basis of my experience at least, I do not think we should legislate for the exception as opposed to the general rule.
As was pointed out to me by the Pembroke Public Library people on Saturday last, if a concurrence of tenure is legislated in this new act it may very well create not just uncertainty for the first few weeks or months in terms of the ongoing management of the board but also some attendant budget concerns.
It seems to me the current situation is working very well in almost all situations. I draw to the attention of the minister what I feel are the very legitimate concerns of a number of my library people about breaking that. I hope the minister, who has indicated a desire to be considerate and to move some amendments -- I was not here for her earlier comments -- will really do that in committee, where there is an ability to thrash this hay through one more time to see if there is not perhaps a better way than that which is suggested in subsections 10(2) and 10(4) of the bill.
There is another section that was commented upon, and I think the point was well made. There was concern by some of my boards about subsection 24(2) of the bill, which states, "The amount of the estimates that is approved by the council, subject to any terms and conditions that the council imposes, shall be adopted by the board and shall be paid to the board out of the moneys appropriated for it."
There is a feeling that perhaps that phrase "subject to any terms and conditions that the council imposes" is too explicit an invitation for municipal government to meddle unnecessarily in the management of the library affairs.
Granted, there is an ultimate responsibility for much, if not all, of library policy at the local government level. However, it seems, and perhaps there is a good reason that I have not heard, the concern that was expressed was that in most cases there is a good relationship between the board and the local government. There was a nervous twitch about that subsection 24(2), "The amount of the estimates that is approved by the council, subject to any terms and conditions that the council imposes, shall be adopted by the board ... " There was a suggestion that there might be an invitation to undue interference. The men and women on both sides are reasonable, but it is a concern I wanted to express on behalf of some of the library people with whom I have spoken.
9:20 p.m.
In my absence, my learned friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk talked about section 39 of the bill. It concerns me that this section of the bill dealing with regulations is about as expansive as the Pacific Ocean. The regulations and the implementation of the act are left too much in the hands of the minister and, more important, her well-intentioned bureaucratic support staff.
Let me read section 39:
"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,
"(a) providing for the distribution of all moneys appropriated by the Legislature for library purposes;
"(b) prescribing the conditions governing the payments of grants to boards;
"(c) respecting the establishment, organization, management, operation, premises and rules of public libraries."
That last one particularly concerns me. I can imagine the clever bureaucrat, in the name of regulation, having almost imperial scope in the application of this legislation.
When I look back to some of those other sections to which I referred, I see the minister is very anxious to tie down local boards and local governments to their very specific responsibilities; but when it comes to this level of government, we have a very open-door policy with respect to regulations.
This is not good legislation in terms of parliamentary government. This is altogether too great a transfer of power from parliament to administrative staff. I know the tradition has been to establish a reasonable latitude for the writing of regulations, but section 39 is too open. It would be useful if we could confine its scope somewhat.
Finally, I want to mention one or two observations consistently made in conversations I have had with library people in eastern Ontario.
First -- and the bill deals with this -- is the library service area. There is a feeling, certainly in my constituency of North Renfrew, that the districts of the service areas are getting unmanageably large. If one is in a place such as Pembroke, Petawawa or Deep River and one's service area is anchored in Kingston, practically speaking -- this is a family show, and I would not want to use the analogy that springs to mind immediately -- one is very much at the end of the administrative tail and not likely to command the kind of attention that one would hope for.
Perhaps in St. George, York Mills, York East and Lakeshore, there is not a keen sensitivity to the length and breadth of this province. We appreciate the minister's general interest in our geography, but sometimes we get the feeling that at the corner of Yonge and Wellesley or Bay and Bloor, where some of my ministerial friends do business on a daily basis, there is not the sense that it is a long wintry drive from Kingston to Point Alexander or from Parry Sound into the most westerly part of my constituency. When one has these rather large service areas, and they are getting larger, it becomes unmanageable in some particular ways.
The other point that was mentioned to me by a couple of people whose motives were very good and pure was: "Tell those people at Queen's Park they have to make sure provincial moneys applied to libraries go to the maximum extent for the provision of books and other materials. Try to curtail the growing habit of this branch of this ministry -- admittedly in tougher times and dealing with scarcer resources -- whereby we dedicate more of the resources we have at hand to another layer of bureaucracy."
I heard this from two or three people: "Tell the honourable minister we want our money to maximize the provision of books and audiovisual materials for our users. Stop this penchant for spending scarce resources for the creation of another panoply of co-ordinators, administrators and whoever." That strikes me as not unreasonable criticism.
I do not profess to know a great deal about the ministry's library service division, but I know something about other government ministries, not just in Ontario but elsewhere, and this tendency to allocate more and more resources to more and more administration. The titles are endlessly fascinating. I am always impressed by some of the new titles. I am sure the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) must quietly and privately agree there is quite a genius in humankind to create new titles and new responsibilities.
We have to be very careful, as we face very pressing and modern challenges with respect to our library services, that to the greatest degree possible we dedicate the resources available for the direct services that we all expect when we go into the local branch of our community library.
I want to conclude my remarks with those observations. I will look forward to the committee stage on this bill. I say again that the minister has done quite a good job in dealing with some of the tensions I know she has had to face. I do hope she is able to address some of these concerns in either later remarks or in committee amendments.
With that, I will conclude these brief remarks on behalf of the good people of North Renfrew, who want very fine libraries for the 1980s and beyond.
9:30 p.m.
Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I will try to respond to points in groups or in main principle rather than attempting to go over detail that will likely be addressed in a closer, clause-by-clause review. I hope members will appreciate that I will not necessarily be addressing each individual point that has been raised last day and tonight where there was a good degree of specificity.
Let me begin by saying a couple of things. On the occasion of the beginning of our second reading debate, I did provide for public information, to members of this assembly and to interested members of the library community, in the form of a number of amendments that I indicated I was proposing to make to the bill.
I tried to make two things clear at that time. First, I said the amendments flowed from the very active dialogue and discussion that I and my staff have had with representatives of the library community over the past few months. These representatives have been doing, in phone calls, in meetings, in letters and in formal submissions, precisely what I think members on all sides of this House would want; that is, taking advantage of the lapse of time from first reading into second reading to review the bill in some considerable detail and provide me and, I might say, many other members of this Legislature with the benefit of their thoughts both on the points to be maintained and on others to be strengthened, modified or amended.
I realize that making the amendments available was an unusual procedure. I was a bit saddened to have been excoriated for doing that. It was my intention simply to move ahead in the most open manner possible to make the proposed amendments known, since I had been listening through quite some period to the comments that were made and had been persuaded in many areas of the desirability of clarification and modification. It seemed to me the sensible and, I might say, the honest, ethical and decent thing to do to make clear where there had been a willingness on my part to bring forward a change.
With respect to some of the general points, there is no question that in the area that has been described as authority versus autonomy of the library board there has been, as the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) described, a creative tension in the community. I have tried to walk a line that effects a bit of a balance.
I believe there is balance in the bill that is before the members, particularly with a couple of the specific wording amendments I have suggested. That balance is to try to provide the scope of activity and authority for the library board that I think is reflected in all the communities of this province -- I think this is the case whether it is a very large board or a very small board, whether it is an independent board or a board that is made up principally of municipal representatives -- and balance it with a reasonable accountability to the municipal level, which accounts for a figure of close to 90 per cent of the funding of local library boards across this province.
This is not to suggest in any way that library boards would conduct themselves without regard to the quite reasonable financial impact on the municipality or that municipalities would wish to discharge the role of a library board directly. Should the latter be the case, by the way, the municipality would be free to bring forward an application for private legislation. I do not want to see coming through the back door what we are not permitting in the front door, but I am desirous of seeing a reasonable balance in the areas of authority and accountability, and I think we have been able to do that.
In the area of free access to library materials instead of simply to books, I think members on all sides of the assembly are in reasonable agreement. Certainly I am very much in agreement with those who have pointed this out, and I tried to indicate in my opening statement that I am very attracted to free access to library materials and not confining it to books. I am pleased to advise members that the library association and individual boards have already begun work on the possible definitions of materials to effect a change there.
Free access obviously leads one to the consideration of equal access to libraries across this province. Equal access is partly a question of funding, which I agree is fundamental to libraries. But it is also partly a function of the way in which individual libraries and the people in the communities with libraries relate to and deal with other libraries. That speaks very specifically to such questions as support services to local libraries, interlibrary loans and assistance in the collections. Those sorts of things are precisely the things that the Ontario library service has always been designed to do, and they are precisely what I and, I think, all of the library community look to the Ontario library service to do in the future.
Are we amalgamating down to eight? Yes, we are. Therefore, are we providing larger service areas? Yes, we are. However, we are doing so based on considerable and extensive advice from the task groups that were composed specifically of library representatives in reviewing the Bassnett report, which made recommendations about economy, so as to do what I think the member for Renfrew North was conveying as the wish of constituents in his area. It was to ensure that moneys were directed to library service and not to the administrative end. Providing that specific support for library service is precisely what we are trying to do with the Ontario library service changes.
The changes will speak as well to the changed focus of those service boards. At present, the boards are composed of municipalities of 15,000 or more population with libraries. Interestingly, that question of size does not affect, for example, those who are constituents of the great riding of St. George, who live in a municipality considerably larger than 15,000. However, there was a great concern, particularly in eastern Ontario, from smaller library boards.
Library boards in areas with a population considerably less than 15,000 found they were not represented on the regional boards and expressed the concern that their needs for library service were perhaps not being focused on in the fashion that they should.
I was sympathetic to that. In my view, the larger the board at the municipal level, the greater the likelihood of a larger resource and greater sophistication. The smaller the board, the greater the likelihood of a smaller community and the greater the likelihood of a reduced resource. The support, the assistance and the focus on improved service are very much the goals here in the changes to the Ontario library service and are very much the goals in the changes to the appointments that are there.
I want to deal specifically with a couple of points that were raised. One was a disturbing indication, I believe made by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), that there was a charge of some $8 or $9 for interlibrary loans in areas of northern Ontario. That troubled me greatly, and I undertook specifically to inquire into that, because the entire point of funding the Ontario library service is to provide interlibrary loans at no direct cost to the user. I remain concerned about that information, and I ask for greater detail from the honourable member.
The present system is very clear. There is absolutely no charge to the user for interlibrary loans in the public library service in northern Ontario or anywhere else in the Ontario library system. Where books or materials are being borrowed from key centres, for example, Thunder Bay, which is clearly a resource community for many areas of the north, and where costs might be borne by that local library in providing some of the materials, those costs are borne by the Ontario library system so that neither the Thunder Bay Library nor the user of the library loan suffers a cost or has to pay for the service. I say that most emphatically.
9:40 p.m.
I would also like to indicate to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that I have done one or two things for him lately. One of those is to have placed in the mail, even before he spoke tonight, the book called The Best Gift on Carnegie libraries, to which he referred. It was one of the bicentennial projects sponsored by my ministry this year and subsidized in publication. I and many other members of the library community are very pleased and proud of the book and we hope when the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and all members of this Legislature receive a copy of The Best Gift they will read it, enjoy it and recall the importance of the Carnegie libraries.
In turn, when dealing with their constituents when thoughts come up for renovation, expansion or new construction, I would hope all members would encourage them to retain those very marvellous libraries that I agree have all too often, on a local-option basis, been torn down to make way for a rather more modern and I would argue in all too many cases rather less interesting architectural form.
Finally, simply for tonight's debate, I would like to take the opportunity to read into the record a letter under date of November 15, 1984, hand-delivered to me this evening in the Legislature, copies of which are shown as having gone to the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer) and the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande). This is on the letterhead of the Ontario Library Association. It reads:
"Dear Minister:
"Since our letter of November 6, 1984, we have had the opportunity to review the proposed amendments to Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries.
"We are pleased to see that the proposed amendments reflect many of the concerns that have been discussed by the library community and by the Ontario Library Association. We commend you and your staff for the flexibility and obvious concern that you have shown. Meetings with Mr. Vanderelst and others in your branch office have provided a very positive climate for the discussion of the amendments under consideration.
"We look forward to continuing the dialogue in committee, which we trust will lead to a resolution satisfactory to all concerned."
The letter is signed by Elizabeth Cummings, the immediate past president of the Ontario Library Association.
I read that into the record not in any way to suggest, as I know Miss Cummings would not, that all the points raised by the Ontario Library Association have been met in the amendments, because we know they have not, but rather to put on the record what I think is a statement of co-operation and openness that might perhaps have not been left in the minds of the members of the Legislative Assembly, were they to have confined themselves to correspondence that was read into the record the day we began our debate.
On motion by Hon. Ms. Fish, the debate was adjourned.
THEATRES AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 82, An Act to amend the Theatres Act.
Mr. Nixon: Do not get violent.
Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, at times one has to restrain oneself from being violent or exercising violence against those who peddle this stuff. I will talk about it a little later.
There is one aspect of the debate we adjourned last Tuesday night that bothers me. That is the fact that a number of us used the term "new pornography," and I include myself. Pornography is not new. If one goes to the art galleries and looks at the Van Gogh paintings of naked women, it can be argued that one is looking at the porn of that day.
Apparently men felt it was a mark of their station in life to have fat women in a world where a great many people went hungry, to demonstrate to the world they were good providers. It was shown in primitive life among native people that the warrior who could have a deerskin coat decorated with a great deal of handwork that took a lot of time showed what a great provider he was.
It was an adornment to him and not to the women who did the work or the women who were the subjects of the painting. It was an adornment to him to show that his wife did not have to slave all day in order to provide food. She had time to make these articles of art which he got, not she.
One might recall the greatest movie of all time. That is the one that is reputed to have been the greatest money-earner; or if not the greatest money-earner, at least the one seen by the most people. That was Gone With the Wind.
I think I was about 16 years old when I saw it. It was the first movie I had seen. I believe it was about four hours long, with an intermission in the middle. I remember the scene where Rhett Butler carried Vivian Leigh up the grand stairway.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Scarlett O'Hara.
Mr. McGuigan: Scarlett O'Hara. The minister saw it too.
Hon. Mr. Elgie: Yes. Clark Gable carried Vivian Leigh.
Mr. McGuigan: The minister is much younger than I am. I did not see him at the movie.
He carried her up the grand stairway, struggling. Then, of course, the scene faded to the next morning.
Mr. Nixon: That is the way it should be.
Mr. McGuigan: My colleague should not say that until I say this: Then you find the actress, Vivian Leigh, whistling Dixie, or some other tune -- I cannot recall the tune, but the implication was that her husband had raped her and all was very fine the next morning. Of course, this is the scene that is the subject of so much of what we are talking about, that women enjoy rape, are begging for it.
Do you remember The Godfather? I do not know whether I can name the actor in that but he is a well-known actor.
An hon. member: Marion Brando.
Mr. McGuigan: Marion Brando. It showed a scene in a nightclub in Cuba where a giant of a man walks out with a cape over him. They then bring a woman in bondage and tie her to a post, or some prop on the stage. The camera then fades away from the man and you do not see him but you see the cape drop to the floor and somebody in the audience says, "What a man." Members can guess what was going on. What followed, of course, was a scene of rape on the stage.
It was not explicit. A great many of these things were left to one's imagination. Perhaps it is better left that way. But the type of pornography we are talking about, even 10 or 15 years ago, was pretty mild stuff. Now we have reached the stage where we are saying, "Enough is enough."
I want to make this point to the minister, and to the members, that I am really not comfortable saying that a little bit is all right, or a certain amount is all right, or it is okay for this age but further down the road it is going to be different.
I know we do not live in an ideal world nor are we going to be able to go back and change Little Red Riding Hood. I know we are not going to do that. I would not want to suggest we do it. I know there are people who fear that once we get into censorship, that is the first thing we will do. I want to say I do not like the idea of saying that a certain level is okay and from then on we are going to stop it.
The progression I described, which is a pretty mild progression, points out to the members that each producer of this material has to top the last performance in order to stay in the market.
9:50 p.m.
I am reminded of a story about George Jessel. He is reputed to have been the greatest toastmaster the United States, or perhaps the world, has ever produced. He was the master of ceremonies of a stage production in which the main participants were elephants. Of course, it was done in a very grand and elegant style. It was an elegant audience and an elegant situation. The master of ceremonies and all the attendants were dressed in formal clothes. However, the elephant did what most animals do when they are nervous and tense.
After the audience stopped laughing -- and according to the story, it went on for a long time because of the juxtaposition of formality and earthiness -- George Jessel turned to the elephant and said, "What are you going to do for an encore?"
That is really what we are faced with when these producers try to top themselves or try to get an encore.
Some producers dismember wild animals. In one of the most recent cases, they were pulling the eyes out of dogs and similar creatures. It is pretty hard to imagine why anybody would want to watch eyes being pulled out of dogs or any animals. Nevertheless, it is being done.
Some of the members have said the answer lies in strengthening the Criminal Code, making it possible for the police or individuals to lay charges with some hope that a conviction might be obtained. I want to look at the practicality of that suggestion. I am looking at it, of course, as a layman, not being a member of the learned society. I believe most of us are attracted to the idea of doing it all by the Criminal Code; I am myself.
One of the problems from a practical standpoint is the industry itself. Films are made for worldwide distribution. We reverse the process we use when we make an automobile. We make a standard version, with a standard frame and design, and then we add all the luxury items later to bring up the price.
They do the reverse when they make these films and videos. They include in the finished product the worst things the human mind could imagine, the worst things the lowest common denominator in any part of the world could think of.
I remember seeing Bonanza on TV in the home of a friend of mine in Britain. As the program really was a rerun of the programs we had seen in Canada, I recognized the show. I did not recognize the explicit rape scene, because at home Bonanza was a family show and we did not see those rape scenes. They may have been implied, but we did not see them. They saw the whole thing in Britain. I began to feel a little squeamish about it, a bit ashamed of our North American export.
While I was squirming around in my chair, I looked at my companions and they were not batting an eyelid. It was accepted there. Other markets would accept far worse things. I am not trying to brag about my travels because I have not travelled very much, but wherever I go I try to observe as much of life as possible, including entertainment.
I saw a movie on TV in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is the source of some of the worst material in front of us. Apparently, the Hong Kong censor, the Hong Kong distributor or the person presenting the film had cleaned it up and what we saw in Hong Kong was less offensive in terms of its explicit scenes than the very same movie shown here in Ontario or in Canada.
If a producer submitted an uncut film to an audience and was then charged, would the charge be laid on one scene or for the entire movie? None of the courts has said we must have regulations saying what is permissible and what is not. I can imagine the lawyers might say, "You can lay charges only on this one scene, rather than against the whole movie." After all, when one charges a person, he is charged for the acts he has committed and not for being a person.
Showing a particular scene, it seems to me that is the item that would be charged. I will leave it up to the lawyers to say whether that would happen. However, if it were done scene by scene, we can imagine how many years it would take, with the film operating all the while. I am making the assumption that a person is innocent until proved guilty. The movie would probably run through a generation of viewers before it could be run through the courts to clean it up.
Will the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) comment on that aspect? Surely his lawyers have looked at it. We could have charges laid by citizens for scenes from someone spitting on the sidewalk to scenes of people being disembowelled alive.
Mr. Nixon: Or spitting in the face of a negotiator.
Mr. McGuigan: That sort of thing only happens up north, apparently.
With the Morgentaler trial, we now have another uncertainty. That is the question of choosing prospective jurors. Large amounts of money are spent by wealthy defenders to practically guarantee the jury will acquit. In order to maintain some objectivity and to stay away from the reasons for the trial, I will simply talk about the process.
I have a series of articles written on the subject prior to the Morgentaler trial. I wish to quote from a number of articles that talk about the jury system. I will finish with some that were written just before the trial.
This is from the Toronto Star, December 8, 1982. It is entitled, "Market Research Enters the Courtroom." It is two years prior to the Morgentaler trial. It is by Rick Haliechuk.
"US lawyers now use polling methods to give them an edge with the jury. In a record-setting judgement last year, a Phoenix man won a jury award of $2 million for back injuries suffered in a car accident. Luck? No. His lawyer attributes the huge award to jury research, a legal tool rarely used in Canada, but fast growing in favour in the United States.
"Before the trial, the lawyer tried out various arguments to a mock jury. Finally, he tried out one where he said the injured man would never again be able to stoop down and pick up his two-year-old daughter.
"'It is simply part of the legal process,' explained sociologist Leo Shapiro, who runs a Chicago market research firm which has worked for many US lawyers. Shapiro's firm does sophisticated polling of areas from where potential jurors will be drawn, canvassing their knowledge and thoughts about a particular case." That is in the US.
I have an article written about the virtues of juries. It is entitled, "Abolition of Juries Could Erode All Justice." It is from the Thunder Bay Chronicle-Journal, October 1, 1980. "'The jury system is our basic guarantee of democracy,' says Michael Proulx, a McGill University law professor. 'Now, there are overtures to abolish trial by jury, something that has been with us for the last 900 years.'
"Jury trials in civil cases in Quebec were abolished five years ago, and in Montreal only 10 per cent of criminal cases that could go before a jury ever do. Senior District Court Judge Patrick Fitzgerald says: 'Juries are the final bastion of defence against despotism and dictatorship. In a country which has a jury system, whatever the maximum penalty is, in advance of the trial there is no way that the person who will decide guilt or innocence can be preselected.'"
10 p.m.
This is what he said in 1980. I am not sure it is true today. For example, he said that when there was a death penalty in Canada there was no one in the entire country who had the power of life or death over anyone else until that person was chosen to be a juror. Fitzgerald said, "Corruption by jurors and psychological intimidation are so rare that they are almost nonexistent in this part of Canada."
The judge said: "Jurors are a repository of common sense. They bring to any legal case a much wider experience than a judge could possibly do. In every criminal case, the jury is strictly the judge of the facts, while the presiding judge is the sole judge of the law. And they are a basic safeguard of our liberty."
Hon. Mr. Wells: This has nothing to do with the bill.
Mr. McGuigan: All right. I will not go any further on that if that is the feeling.
We come to the conclusion, by reading the article, that a jury of our peers, representing a cross-section of society and the requirement that all 12 must agree before conviction in a criminal trial, is in the end the best system. These people in theory have street smarts, a knowledge of the real world, not the world of Milton or John Stuart Mill, when they wrote their monumental works on theology, philosophy and politics. Collectively, they have a better hold on wisdom than a judge does.
I believe it and so do most members of this assembly, but I do have some serious doubts about jurors selected not on their ability to make objective judgements but on their likelihood of expressing, because of their background, their own particular biases toward society. If members of a jury can be chosen because they seldom, if ever, attend religious services, and if we accept that system, then would it be acceptable to choose members who were all Jerry Falwell supporters?
That is a serious question. I do not as a layman have any special ability to solve it, but as a person with at least in my own mind a certain amount of street smarts -- I guess it would better be described from my background as horse sense -- I do believe I have some right to question that system.
If we are to solve the question through the criminal court system, I believe we would have to have severe sentences, up to five years in prison. Fines alone would not deter an industry that has billions of dollars at its disposal for payment of fines. With a five-year sentence there is a mandatory jury system. One can bet one's last dollar that if the industry would have the money to select the best jurors, then it will have the best lawyers money can buy.
I believe the number of cases would clog the courts to the extent we could solve the problems of current law students and future graduates in creating a whole new court industry. There would probably be decisions ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime on the cases that did go through the courts.
There would be no standard by which distributors or producers could justify what amount of self-censoring they should do. As long as we have a market economy, we can be sure entrepreneurs will be testing the ceiling on the market to see how far they can go, or perhaps better expressed what they can get away with.
One can well imagine that police and citizens would give up the cases, because they would be bogged down in the courts, and those people would probably continue to earn money. I believe in the theory that one is innocent until proved guilty.
Authorities in Quebec have given up on the question of free-standing abortions because the courts, not the legislature, have made the law. Perhaps that is an acceptable solution in the eyes of some people. It is acceptable, I suggest, because they feel their particular bias has been well served.
I do not like the public decisions. I do not like it when laws are made in the courts. I do not like a system where legislatures are ignored. I do not like a system that empowers the President to bomb Cambodia and, at the same time, to deny it is going on. I do not like a system that claims it is working to solve acid rain problems, while it is backing away from protective measures.
It is an obscenity to do what that system allows, indeed encourages to be done by those whose only objective is to make money. There may be something to be said in favour of a jury defying Parliament. If that jury is representative of the public one could with some reluctance accept its decision; but when the jury is selected by using the latest scientific methods of probing a person's inner mind, I question the right of that jury to defy Parliament.
Those are some of the practical reasons we would have problems with relying solely on the Criminal Code. I do not think that should mean we should say we have solved the problem entirely by going to the censorship system. I do not have any problems in saying it is censorship. The enormity of the problem requires that we move now. As we see the need for more refined methods of dealing with the problem, we should search for those methods.
In closing, I want to mention something to all those in the Legislature and those who may have a further interest in getting some of the background on this matter. There was a symposium held in Toronto last spring called the Symposium on Media Violence and Pornography. I have their report, An International Perspective: Proceedings, Resources Book and Research Guide.
This was started by five people in the Hamilton area, Muriel Beatty, Joan DeNew, Doris Epstein, Gail Porter and David Scott. They put up a sum of money. I do not have a record of it, but it was something in the order of $50,000. They gave this as private citizens to sponsor this symposium. People paid $35 to go to it, and from these fees they cut their debt to in the neighbourhood of $20,000. These individuals have carried this themselves.
There were social scientists there who had studied the problem and had a great deal of empirical evidence to show. By examining people in their youth and following through until they became adults, they could predict the amount of violence in which they would engage by looking at the record of how much violence they had watched over a period time as students.
They talked about a group of people in the United States that is developing, and we have seen it in Canada. They estimate there are about 100 mass murderers at large in the United States who wantonly kill people at random.
They are not necessarily people we might describe as paedophiles, those who are attracted to young children, who have some sort of inner psychological or sexual drive towards children; or largely people who cannot deal with adults, who are very weak and who take out their aggression and inadequacy on children.
10:10 p.m.
One of the most surprising things presented was the charge that fashion magazines are among the worst offenders in the way they present women. They present them all in submissive poses. There is one that was cited as being an instigator -- one of the collector's items for a paedophile. It was a picture on the front of Vogue magazine in 1983. It showed Jessica Lange with her daughter, about 12 years old, with full frontal nudity.
That may have seemed cute. Many people have snapped pictures of their children at two or three years of age in the bathtub, but in the hands of these paedophiles and the people who make an obsession of that sort of thing, it is violent, potent material.
They described one case where they found a fellow who had computerized his collection of these materials. They also found a network of people who use the mails to distribute these photos back and forth to one another. I raise these points to show the extreme things that happen, the amount of money involved and the enormity of the problem.
I want to close by saying we are not really talking today about the question of whether we are open with sexual matters or whether we are a closed society. I think that is a matter of taste. If people want to do certain things in certain ways, even in public and even if it is offensive to others, as long as it does not harm others -- and I question whether one can say it does not harm others, because it sets an example for young people -- I do not think I would beat the drums for locking those people up.
But when we find people who are openly promoting and setting up a system, a whole new culture, based on violence, violence largely towards women and subjugation of women and other people, a moral and physical slavery, I believe we must take these measures, as inadequate as perhaps they are, to try to establish some sense of decency, some measure of control and perhaps some method of studying, researching and seeing where we go from here and what use this new act will have. It is not just a matter of passing the act and forgetting it. We need to follow these matters for many years.
It is not a subject one likes to talk about. My wife and I attended this meeting, and of course they showed us some of the violent material. It was two weeks before I felt well again. I talked to others who had been there, and they told me they had experienced the same thing.
The member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), who was at the meeting and brought greetings from the government, was wise enough not to stay there as long as the rest of us, who subjected ourselves to the entire proceeding. Anyone who saw it got a lasting impression that these things must be addressed and must be changed. If I were to make a criticism of this government it would be that it has been slow to act. It should have done this some time ago. However, we should be thankful that at least we are now addressing the problem.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in Bill 82 we are dealing with a very contentious issue, the whole question of the right to freedom of expression and whether there should be any restriction on freedom of expression.
Recently the Legislature received a report on Group Defamation, prepared by a former New Democratic Party member, Patrick D. Lawlor, and in that report he has this interesting statement: "Freedom is and must be restricted in order to preserve freedom itself and the equal freedom of others."
This is part of the issue we are facing today, and the issue has been highlighted by the passage of the Charter of Rights. There has already been a legal decision examining the activities of the Ontario Board of Censors and its relationship to that Charter of Rights.
I remind members that the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in February 1984 had the conclusion in it that the section which permits the board to censor or snip films "is ultra vires as it stands" because that section "allows for the complete denial or prohibition of the freedom of expression in this particular area and sets no limits on the Board of Censors."
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In accordance with the announcement made by the government House leader, I think we were going to deal with this at 10:15, and it already is 10:15.
Ms. Bryden: I would like to adjourn the debate then, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Mr. Wells: How much longer does the member anticipate carrying on for?
Ms. Bryden: At least 10 to 15 minutes.
On motion by Ms. Bryden, the debate was adjourned.
10:26 p.m.
PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT
The House divided on Hon. Ms. Fish's motion for second reading of Bill 93, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bernier, Bradley, Conway, Cousens, Dean, Drea, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Epp, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kerrio, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCague, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Mitchell;
Newman, Nixon, Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Reed, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruprecht, Ruston, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Wrye, Yakabuski.
Nays
Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, Grande, Laughren, Lupusella, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Wildman.
Ayes 62; nays 16.
Bill ordered for standing committee on social development.
The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.