The closed doors that separate students from the decision-making process of post-secondary institutions don't appear to be opening any time soon.

Ontario universities have successfully lobbied to exempt themselves from a bill that would have ensured that their deliberations and meetings become more open and accessible to the public.

Universities have continuously and quietly lobbied against Bill 123, called The Transparency in Public Matters Act, since its introduction in October, 2004 by Liberal M.P.P Caroline Di Cocco. The bill, which has largely escaped notice, would remove barriers that still exist between the public and public institutions, requiring that the minutes of meetings and the times they are to take place be made available to anyone who wants them.

On September 29, Di Cocco brought forward a motion to amend the bill, now in its second reading, that will exclude certain public bodies, including universities. The amendments are expected to be passed in the next month.

According to the current Ontario laws, it is left up to individual universities to ensure that transparency requirements are followed.

"Each university has its own bylaws, which means it depends on the individual running the show [to ensure transparency]," said Di Cocco. According to her, her bill will eliminate such "self-policing" by enforcing standards on accountability.

The opposition of post-secondary institutions to the measure has raised eyebrows among university watchdog groups, who say this proves universities will fight to keep their decision-making process secret, and that students and parents would have benefited from Di Cocco's legislation.

But not so, says Qaid Silk of the Council of Ontario Universities, who defends his organization's opposition to the bill.

"[Universities] fully support openness and access to all information," he said, adding that their opposition stemmed from the fact that "provincial legislation already regulates how meetings [of universities] will be held, and Di Cocco's bill was similar to this."

Silk insists that current legislation under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA) already covers the principles outlined in Di Cocco's bill and that being included would have simply created "redundant legislation."

According to the current legislation, FOIPPA does allow access to the minutes of public-body meetings if requested; however, it does not ensure that the public is notified of meetings. And according to Liberal MPP Kim Craitor, there is a wealth of loopholes public bodies can use to get around the current legislation.

Craitor, who is on the committee reviewing the bill, says that currently, it is difficult to make the closed meeting of a public body such as a university public.

"There is no mechanism to challenge [a lack of transparency], whereas the bill [proposed by Di Cocco] gives the opportunity to do this."

U of T president David Naylor could not be reached for comment, despite requests.

Despite the lobbying from universities, Di Cocco insists her choice to limit her bill's mandate to three public institutions-city halls, public schools, and hospitals-was a practical decision, because narrowing down the scope will give it a better chance of succeeding.

Craitor, however, said the opposition to the bill from public institutions has been overwhelming, and hinted that the new amendments have more to do with pressure from universities.

"I am not in favour of the amendments, despite the huge opposition to [the bill]," he said.

He recognizes the fact that aside from closed-door meetings dangerously allowing universities to make decisions that affect the public without having public input, these meetings also run the risk of putting their employees in a compromising position.

"[When I was a] city councillor, I would challenge why we were having closed-door meetings, and [the response] would be that it fits in to an exemption. Now, I had two options. [Although] I didn't feel that what we were discussing belonged in there but out in public, I could stay to hear what was being discussed because I needed to be aware of the issues, or leave because I didn't agree. If I walked out there was no recourse; there was no way for me to challenge it.

"I had no another body to go to challenge it, and that's what Caroline's bill will do."

Although universities have been dropped from Bill 123, which has existed in some form since 2001, Di Cocco said she is still hopeful that universities will become more open. If her bill is passed she will have established "standard legislation for the transparency of public bodies."

"Once you have standard legislation it becomes easier to apply to [other] institutions," she said.

Municipalities such as Peterborough are opposing a bill that would give citizens a way to hold government more accountable, the MPP behind the proposed legislation says.

“The feel they can self-police,” said Sarnia Lambton MPP Caroline Di Cocco.

City council passed a motion to urge the minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to vote against Bill 123, Transparency in Public Matters Act, when it goes to the House of Commons for its third and final reading.

The bill would usher in changes including ways to investigate the appropriateness of closed sessions and penalties for going behind closed doors when meeting should be public.

It would give the public a way to clear the cloud of suspicion that something is being discussed in secret that shouldn’t be, Di Cocco said.

“You want to strengthen public trust,” she said. “Transparency strengthens that public trust.”

Individuals would be able to complain to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario if they believed a public body has violated, or is about to violate, open meetings rules.

If the commissioner discovered that the rules were violated, organizations could be fined up to $2,500.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario is asking that references to municipal governments be removed from the bill.

The association argues the bill would lead to paralysis of decision-making since municipalities would need to follow the new legislation as well as the Municipal Act.

Coun. Jack Doris said the city’s solicitor advised against supporting the bill because it would leave the city vulnerable to lawsuits for releasing private information.

That’s inaccurate, Di Cocco said.

“We’re not changing the privacy laws,” she said. “All this says is you have to conduct your affairs in public.”
Under the propose legislation, public bodies would have to vote in public in order to meet behind closed doors.

The motion voted on would have to state the mature of the matter to be discussed in the closed meeting and why the public is kept out.

The bill would improve government transparency, said Peterborough MPP Jeff Leal.

“As a city councillor for 18 years and MPP for two, the more transparency we can introduce in the system the better off our system of government will be,” Leal said.

But Leal said he understands city council’s hesitation. It may need to be amended to make sure the concerns of municipalities are considered, Leal said.

“Your don’t want to open up to the prospect of increased lawsuits which are a very expensive undertaking,” he said.

The bill is now scheduled for a clause-by-clause inspection where it will be opened for possible amendments before it’s presented for its final reading in the House of Commons.

Di Cocco introduced similar bills in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

Editorials - A private member’s bill now working its way through the Ontario legislature would provide strong new guarantees that municipal governments are open, accountable and acting in the public’s best interest.

Those are principles that municipal politicians – or at least the vast majority of them – say they support wholeheartedly.

So why was Peterborough city council so quick to demand that municipal councils and their committees be removed from the list of bodies falling under the jurisdiction of Bill 123, the Transparency in Public Matters Act?

It seems the most compelling factor among councillors who supported the motion was a comment from the city solicitor that information from private companies or individuals dealing with the city would have to be made public, which could lead to lawsuits.

However, Caroline Di Cocco, the Liberal MPP who put the bill together, denies that is the case. She says the proposed new law would not change any privacy laws. And Peterborough MPP Jeff Leal, a municipal councillor for 18 years, supports the bill and says any concerns about privacy violations could be handled through amendments.

Whether such amendments are necessary is debatable, but as Leal said, that debate can always take place.

What is much more disturbing is the rationale of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) for removing cities, towns and villages from the requirements of Bill 123.

The AMO, a lobby group which represents Ontario’s 445 municipalities, is leading the charge against Di Cocco’s proposal. It asked every municipality to adopt a resolution calling on the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and all MPPs to drop municipalities from the bill. Were that to happen, Bill 123 would likely end up applying only to hospitals and boards of education . . . still a step forward, but much too small a step.

The AMO has two arguments that on their own may appear reasonable. First, that Queen’s Park would be betraying its recent progress in treating municipalities like grown-up governments which deserve more autonomy so they can work more efficiently. Second, that what is proposed in Bill 23 is either already in the Municipal Act or is being considered as part of ongoing talks to overhaul that act.

The first argument sounds a bit like schoolyard whining, but does have some merit. The second would be a sound reason if it were completely true, but in fact Bill 123 contains some important measures that are not included in Municipal Act discussions and which the AMO actively opposes. Those include bringing in the Privacy Commissioner to police municipal transparency. Instead of having to go through the courts, which is prohibitively expensive and time consuming, anyone who felt a municipal council had been unfairly secretive could appeal to the commissioner’s office.

But the real problem is that the AMO actually wants to take a huge step backward in terms of openness and transparency. It argues that councils should be able to hold closed meetings to discuss the background of virtually any issue, or just to avoid looking stupid. In the organization’s own words: “... to go in camera for strategic planning, education sessions, or to have the opportunity to ask ‘dumb’ questions that one might not ask in front of an audience.”

Ironically, the AMO backs up that argument by referring to the comments of an Ontario Court of Appeal judge in a decision that went against a municipal committee which tried to disguise an official meeting as something else and illegally barred the media from attending.

One judge did, indeed, state that politicians should be able to freely discuss business “...freely, off the record...” away from “spotlights” and “microphones.” But his was the dissenting opinion. The majority, with a much better appreciation of the need for transparent government, ruled the municipality’s bylaw on open meetings had been violated.

Peterborough city council has come a long way over the past two decades and is now among the more open municipal bodies in Ontario. It should not be going along with an AMO plan to reverse that progress by giving municipalities a virtually free hand to discuss the meat and potatoes of city business in private.

People need to hear not just the decisions that are made, but the debate and information that lead to those decisions.

Re "New bill would curb secrecy" (Nov. 5) –

Unfortunately the article failed to point out that the proposed "Transparency in Public Matters Act" will do nothing to curb persistent secrecy in the management of publicly funded Ontario universities.

Private member's Bill 123 initially included universities but Liberal MPP Caroline Di Cocco, whose bill it is, introduced amendments to exclude them. Di Cocco appears to have fallen prey to the universities' behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts seeking exclusion - the very type of backroom decision-making she hopes to stop with her act!

Ontario municipalities are subject to provincial freedom of information legislation. Ontario universities are currently not.

The Association of Ontario Municipalities is seeking to remove municipal governments from the scope of the Transparency in Public Matters Act, but at least it is doing so openly. Taxpayers remain in the dark as to what reasoning, if any, has led to amendments exempting universities from the scope of the Act.

Ontario's Information and Privacy Commission's initial support of Bill 123 specifically noted the scope of bodies subject to the Act was too narrow. Proposing amendments to further reduce the scope by removing universities cannot possibly be in the public interest. It is a stunning reversal for Di Cocco and other Liberal MPPs who espouse to be committed champions of transparency in public matters, including our local MPP Jeff Leal.

Why, one wonders, are universities so frightened of legislation which requiring accountability and transparency?

Ken Brown
Bolivar Street