A strengthened and more encompassing version of the Transparency in Public Matters Act of 2005 (Bill 123) will be introduced in the Ontario Legislative Assembly by Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor next Tuesday. The intent of the Act is to let the public know what's going on behind closed doors by requiring meetings to be open unless dealing with narrow and specific exclusions, and to publish clear and detailed minutes. The previous version of the Act had been watered down and, under pressure from the Council of Ontario Universities (COU), excluded universities. That version was subsequently withdrawn when its proponent, Caroline Di Cocco, became Minister of Culture last April. Craitor’s revamped Bill will subject universities to the full scope of the Act and include other publicly funded bodies that had been excluded by amendment or omission.

The Bill will set out obligations for publicly funded bodies to give notice of meetings, provide an agenda and to publish clear and neutral minutes containing sufficient detail to adequately inform the public of the main subject matters considered, any deliberations engaged in and any decisions made. The Information and Privacy Commissioner will be empowered to receive complaints that a public body has contravened, or is about to contravene, the Bill and authorizes the Commissioner to make certain orders after a review, including an order that voids a decision made at a meeting that did not conform to the requirements of the Bill.

The Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) commented on Di Cocco's earlier version of Bill 123 (2004). In the publication "I'm Sorry, this Meeting is Closed to the Public: Why We Need Comprehensive Open Meetings Legislation in Canada" the noted that Bill 123 was a good start but needed to be improved in two ways:

• it needed rules to prevent public bodies from slipping last-minute items onto an agenda without public notice,
• the scope of the bill needed to be expanded to include other publicly funded bodies that meet for deliberation and decision making (ie: universities).

The last rendition (second reading) of Di Cocco's Bill 123 (2005) did include amendments to prevent slipping in last minute agenda changes but also, paradoxically, amendments narrowing the scope of bodies subject to the act and specifically excluding universities!

We're hoping that Craitor's revised Transparency in Public Matters Act addresses these two points in full.

This legislation is important for those interested in assuring that Trent University begins to operate transparently. While spin-doctoring a good line to "focus considerable attention on increasing the transparency of the University's operations" Trent has been demonstrably, and sadly, lacking real effort to provide the public with information that is rightfully public. This has severely hobbled the public's ability to understand and evaluate Trent's decisions, let alone to participate in any meaningful fashion.

It is often many months before Trent publishes the minutes of a board meeting, by which time the public has generally no opportunity to evaluate or critique the content of the meeting. For example, the last board meeting was on June 23 yet, more than three months later, the minutes have not been published on the web. Minutes do not contain the content of debate in board meetings and instead euphemistically use expressions like "Members of the Board of Governors offered their perspectives and assurances" without informing the public what those perspectives and assurances actually were or which members made them. Minutes often contain references to other documents "attached as Appendix A to the master copy of these Minutes" but these documents are never made available together with the published minutes, forcing the public to specifically request them from official channels.

It is expected that Craitor's transparency bill will face stiff opposition from COU who will aggressively lobby for exclusion as they have done in the past. There may even be opposition from within Craitor's own government, including Premier Dalton McGuinty who said Di Cocco's bill would "be an imposition on the municipalities."

We applaud Craitor's efforts and hope that he can withstand the pressure from COU and others seeking to water down the bill or seeking exclusions from it (including pressure from those within his own Liberal government lacking a real commitment to transparency) .

If you are in favour of a revamped and strengthened Transparency in Public Matters Act, please contact Kim Craitor and let him know (contact information below).

References:

• Craitor to Re-Introduce Bill to ensure Transparency in Public Bodies
  Kim Craitor Media Release - September 29, 2006
• Craitor fighting for open meetings
  Niagara Falls Review - September 29, 2006
• Transparency bill revisited; Niagara MPP introduces 'stronger' bill
  Sarnia Observer - September 26, 2006
• Kim Craitor - MPP Niagara Falls - Liberal Party of Ontario
  Contact Information
• I'm Sorry, this Meeting is Closed to the Public: Why We Need Comprehensive Open Meetings Legislation in Canada
  IPC analysis of Bill 123, 2004
• Reminder: Patterson's commitment to transparency and accountability
  March 1,2005
• Trent Challenge: Transparency and Accountability, Leadership
  September 11, 2005

OurTrent articles on history of Transparency in Public Matters Act 2005 (Bill 123):

• Universities get exemption from proposed Transparency Act
  October 20,2005
• Bill Would Curb Secrecy - But Not In Ontario Universities!
  November 24, 2005
• COU Lobbied For Exclusion From Transparency Act says Queen's Principal
  December 8, 2005
• Transparency In Public Matters Act Withdrawn
  June 8, 2006
• Transparency Legislation Dead - Citizens' Right To Know Suffers Setback
  September 25, 2006