Local News - Sarnia-Lambton MPP Caroline Di Cocco has had to abandon her fight for more openness in government since becoming Ontario's Minister of Culture.

Di Cocco's appointment to cabinet meant her private member's Bill 123, the Transparency in Public Matters Act, had to be pulled off the order paper.

The bill, which she has called a top priority the past six years, had managed to pass second reading and an extensive public hearing process in the fall of 2005.

The fact that it may never see the light of day again is deflating to the minister and everyone who worked on it with her, said Mike Pietrzak, Di Cocco's assistant in Toronto.

"She had been working on it for years and we were all disappointed it died," he said.

Di Cocco is on vacation in Italy and unavailable for comment.

Pietrzak said he and his boss still hold out hope that another member will resurrect Bill 123, although that would mean starting with the first reading again.

Bill 123 was Di Cocco's fourth attempt to make meetings for municipal, hospital and school boards more open to the public.

"We were really pushing for it," Pietrzak said. "And we felt it really was going to become law because it had the support of the premier's office and 30 groups had provided input during the public hearings, including the Canadian Newspaper Association."

He said Di Cocco's office continues to look at various options that would ensure the bill gets government approval in some form.

Most recently, Niagara Falls MPP Kim Craitor suggested he may introduce a transparency bill of his own. However, as a private member's bill, it will have to be chosen for reading through a lottery system.

"There's no reason the (McGuinty) government can't simply adopt the bill if they really believe in the value of it," said Mayor Mike Bradley. "Other governments have done that.

"(Ontario) is so far behind other provinces and states on open government."

Although Di Cocco can't pursue Bill 123 as a private member, her government has the power to incorporate its main points into other legislation, including the new Municipal Act.

But Bradley doesn't think that will happen.

"I'm very disappointed," he said. "There's been a tremendous lobby against the spirit of this bill. I'm afraid they'll use her (cabinet posting) as an excuse."

If the job is left to Craitor, Bradley predicts it will be several years before the issue of transparency in government will be front and centre in Ontario again.

Dear Editor:

I join in the disappointment expressed by Mayor Mike Bradley in the August 10 edition of The Observer when he heard MPP Caroline Di Cocco's Transparency in Public Matters bill was quietly withdrawn by Dalton McGuinty's government.

I say quietly because this bill was withdrawn almost four months ago on APRIL 18 as it was awaiting third and final reading and approval in the Ontario legislature.

As far as I know, Di Cocco, appointed Minister of Culture on APRIL 5, did not make her constituents aware of this withdrawal. I thought her web site and local bi-weekly newspaper column were for such announcements.

It took a call a week ago from The Observer to Di Cocco's office to finally make this matter public in Sarnia-Lambton. How's that for openness and transparency!

The purpose of this Bill was to ensure meetings of designated public bodies such as hospitals, school boards and municipalities at which deliberation or decision-making occurs are open to the public and the minutes of those meetings are available to the public. It promoted transparency and accountability, and would subject the decision making process of bodies receiving taxpayer's money to public scrutiny.

There are many examples in Ontario where these public bodies showed a lack of openness in carrying out their responsibilities.

As campaign co-ordinator for Caroline Di Cocco's election campaigns in 1999 and 2003, I know she had very strong feelings about the need for more openness in these taxpayer-financed institutions. This was based in part on her own experiences with the local Catholic school board with regard to the matter that was dealt with in the judicial Land Inquiry several years ago, and with the local hospital board after she was elected in 1999.

Against very strong opposition even some in her own Liberal caucus, Di Cocco moved this bill ahead over at least a four year period with the support of organizations like the Canadian Newspaper Association, the Information and Privacy Commission of Ontario and even NDP member Marilyn Churley. Locally, Michael Chopcian and Mike Bradley made presentations at government committee hearings in support of the bill.

Apparently, all for naught. Di Cocco's office says it is standard practice for private member's bills to be withdrawn when a member is appointed to cabinet. Why?

Unfortunately, there are no official plans to resurrect the bill. Now the brighter light many of us saw at the end of the openness 'tunnel' is gone.

MPP now Minister Caroline Di Cocco, once known for her advocacy and determination in dealing with these kind of issues, seems to have lost her way.

The Caroline Di Cocco I knew would not have abandoned her long, difficult journey to have the Transparency in Public Matters bill finally approved in the Ontario legislature. Maybe the lure of Ministerial power was more attractive than getting this common sense bill into place to help ensure there is more openness and transparency in the way many of our taxpayer funded institutions operate.

Sincerely,
Robert Swift

One of our local MPP's top priorities since becoming elected has been kicked to the curb by her own government.

Caroline Di Cocco's spring appointment to cabinet meant her private member's Bill 123,the Transparency in Public Matters Act, had to be pulled off the order paper. The bill, which she has called her top priority the past six years, had managed to pass second reading and an extensive public hearing process in the fall of 2005.

This newspaper couldn't reach the vacationing Di Cocco last week when this story broke, however, one could only speculate she was upset by the news back in April when she was appointed to cabinet. Her office staff seemed to take the news hard when we contacted them.

It has taken a few months far I the actual story to get out.

The fact someone else, from her Liberal government hasn't picked up the ball is astonishing. Any politician worth their weight should welcome legislation which opens up the books fully on meetings so the public can openly explore all, aspects of the provincial and municipal government administration.

It's sad when legislation which would uphold the ethics of government is not enacted without hesitation. To not have such legislation in place further erodes public confidence in our system of government.

The Liberals should pick up the ball and pass this bill during the fall session. Using a cabinet posting as a reason to kill a bill is not acceptable. It's time for this government to step up to the plate and do the right thing.

Editorial - Sir: I would like to respond to the recent media coverage of my former private member's bill, the Transparency in Public Matters Act (Bill 123), and would like the opportunity to provide the facts pertaining to this bill.

Although I was not aware of it at the time, the rules of the Ontario Legislature are such that when an elected member becomes a minister, any private member's bills are automatically withdrawn.

The intent of my bill was to ensure more transparency in decision making in public bodies. Although there is no longer a standalone bill, I have worked and continue to work closely with the Ministries of Municipal Affairs, Health and Education to strengthen transparency within their legislation.

My private member's bill over the last seven years has influenced the new changes in the Municipal Act and the governance of the Local Health Integration Networks (LHINs).

In speaking with a reporter from London, I was told that the discussion alone has had an effect. He has been monitoring London city council and found that in the past, they were going in-camera about 60 per cent of the time and that, coincidentally, as the profile of the transparency act became stronger, that percentage has come down to less than 20 per cent. Therefore progress on transparency HAS been made and I will continue to work toward more improvements.

While there is more work to do, I would like to place on the record what has been done by the current provincial government to increase transparency in decision making and my transparency bill has had an influence on these changes.

We've required by law that LHINs seek community engagement on all key decisions and hold publicly accessible board meetings.

Partisan advertising has been stopped through tough legislation so that governments in Ontario cannot use public dollars for self promotion, and must meet standards set out with the oversight of the Auditor General. I would like to remind the members of the public that the former government misused an estimated $250 million of taxpayer dollars for self promotion and did not adhere to the principle that advertisement paid for by public dollars was to be for public service information only.

We put into place a law to have the Auditor General provide an analysis of the province's finances before the next election so that the government in power cannot fool the public with creative accounting as was the case in 2003.

We brought transparency and accountability to OPG (Ontario Power Generation) and Hydro One by making them subject to Freedom of Information and salary disclosure laws, as these sectors had been cloaked under a blanket of secrecy from 1995-2003.

We've made the WSIB system more transparent, and know that progress has been made towards more transparency across the board.

Yes, I am proud of the influence my bill has had, while at the same time understand that more work needs to be done.

Caroline Di Cocco
MPP Sarnia-Lambton

The fight for greater transparency in local government in Ontario has been shelved.

Ironically, that fact nearly escaped public notice.

And the Sarnia MPP who championed that campaign is coming under fire for abandoning the cause on which she built her political career.

Caroline Di Cocco's two-time campaign manager has quit the Liberal party in disgust and accused the Sarnia-Lambton MPP of caring more about a cabinet post than continuing to push for more openness in local government.

"I'm very disappointed. That sums it all up," Robert Swift of Point Edward said yesterday.

"Since she became a part of the government, it's a waste of time talking to her about these kinds of issues."

Di Cocco has also backed off some environmental issues they both cared about, he said.

Di Cocco spearheaded the Transparency in Public Matters Act, which had received two readings and public hearings last fall in the Ontario legislature.

It established penalties for local councils and school and hospital boards if they conduct public business in private. The bill was due for third reading and royal assent this past spring.

But on April 5, Di Cocco was appointed minister of culture by Premier Dalton McGuinty. Her bill was withdrawn a few days later, something that has only recently come to light.

For her part, Di Cocco said yesterday she was unaware when she was appointed minister her bill had to die under the legislature's rules because ministers can't push private member's bills.

"That's just a rule that's there," she said. "I wasn't aware of it at the time."

Di Cocco conceded she was inspired to seek public office because a school official denied information to her back in 1990 she thought should be public.

Since she was elected as an MPP in 1999, Di Cocco has spent more than six years promoting her bill to ensure openness. She said it remains a core value in her public life.

Di Cocco said debate about the bill and the public hearings that attracted submissions from the media and politicians alike has done much to raise public consciousness about the need for greater transparency in government.

"The bill has brought greater profile to the issue of transparency.

"I made my views clear and will continue to do so" with the ministers of municipal affairs, education and health, she said.

A change in the Municipal Act will see complaints about openness investigated by an ombudsman and the new local health networks being established in Ontario require their deliberations be public.

Asked if she would have declined the cabinet post if she had known it would kill her bill, Di Cocco replied: "That's hypothetical. I can't say."

She said another MPP, Liberal Kim Craitor of Niagara Falls, is prepared to pick up the private member's fight if necessary.

Sarnia Mayor Mike Bradley is among the few municipal leaders who backed Di Cocco's bill.

Just this week, he urged McGuinty to resurrect the bill and bring it back as government legislation. But he said McGuinty is reluctant to "impose" on local governments this way.

"Sometimes you have to impose for the greater good," Bradley said. "And putting this back on the private member's bill circuit is the kiss of death. It took six years to get Di Cocco's bill to where it was."

Bradley said he has been seeking provincial legislation since 1996 similar to that in Michigan that has been effective in keeping local politicians on their toes and under public scrutiny.

There has been some interest (and much speculation) on the topic of my private member’s bill 123, the Transparency in Public Matters Act. The rules of the Ontario Legislature are such that when a member becomes a minister, any private member’s bills are automatically withdrawn.

Although the few who have passed judgment on me regarding this matter have not in fact spoken with me, I want to reassure those who are sincerely interested in this topic that progress has been made. In fact, the hard work that was done on this transparency bill has influenced changes in the Municipal Act, (Bill 130). Moreover, it has encouraged new transparency and accountability in our public health care system through the Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) act (Bill 36).

Bill 123 (Transparency Act) advocated a number of important principles concerning the conduct of municipal business:
First, it clarifies those gatherings of councillors that constitute a meeting. It requires timely notice of meetings. It also now requires complete record keeping of all meetings, including meetings closed to the public. In the new bill there are limited exceptions to the principle of “open meetings.” Lastly, it introduces a compliance and enforcement system that is less onerous to the public than the court system.

The Amendments proposed to the Municipal Act, introduced in Bill 130, now promote those same principles. Specific amendments may differ, but the principles of Bill 123 are clearly reflected in Bill 130. These include specific notice of all meetings, clarifying the requirement to have a written record of all meetings, even those closed to the public and a non-court option for compliance.
In response to those who have said creating separate legislation for rules regarding meetings in two acts might have proven confusing, the new amendments to the Municipal Act (Bill 130) mitigate this by adapting the provisions for transparency in my Transparency Act.

Bill 123 also encouraged more transparency and accountability in our public health care system. It proposed a better understanding of how and why hospital boards make decisions and it called for greater citizen involvement in decision-making processes. Although the bills and clauses contained within are not identical, there are significant parallels between my transparency bill and the Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) act (Bill 36). This new bill is bringing an unprecedented level of transparency to health care decision-making in the province.

It is encouraging when I hear the Minister of Health quote my bill as inspiring the spirit and substance of parts of Bill 36. Specifically Bill 36 mandates that LHIN meetings are open to the public. In fact, the LHINs Act was amended in committee to explicitly replicate the language originally used in Section 5 of Bill 123 with respect to in-camera meetings. There is now an explicit, mandated requirement for public consultations and input before key decisions are made. In addition there are now expectations of LHINs to sign accountability agreements (which are public documents with the Minister of Health). If necessary, the Minister can impose these accountability agreements.

It is expected that the Section of Bill 36 related to public meetings will be proclaimed this fall. For the first time, people in communities throughout Ontario will gain insight into how decisions related to planning, funding and integrating health services are actually made. The Ministry of Health has incorporated the intent of the transparency bill for the governance of the Local Health Integration Networks (LHINS) so that the meetings and decisions are conducted in public. We’ve required by law that LHINs seek community engagement and hold publicly accessibly board meetings.

I have worked closely with the ministers and will continue to work with the various ministries towards even more progress for more transparency in how public business is done. My bill has had an impact in new legislation of Municipal Affairs and Health. I am proud of that progress. I acknowledge that not every aspect of my bill has been adopted yet, but I continue to tenaciously chip away on the long road to “transparency in public matters.”

Comments welcome

The amount of public money paid in bonuses to hospital administrators is beyond the public's right to know in cities such as Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal.

Local crime statistics in places such as Laval, Que., Pembroke, Ont., and Fredericton are a carefully guarded secret.

And inquiries from the public about the federal government's pandemic preparations are unworthy of a timely response from bureaucrats.

These are among the findings of a second annual test of government openness organized by the Canadian Newspaper Association.

Over a period of two months, 60 journalists from 39 newspapers across the country visited city halls, police forces, hospitals and federal government offices to document how public officials respond to requests for public information.

While responses from government officials varied widely across the country, there was a disturbing inclination toward secrecy in many government offices, the audit found.

Basic questions about health-care spending, crime, pesticide use and emergency preparedness posed to government officials were denied in 31 per cent of cases, despite the fact the information requested was not controversial and should be readily available.

In some cases, requests were met with lengthy delays or hefty fees.

“Governments cannot be held accountable when freedom of information laws are flouted,” said Anne Kothawala, president and chief executive officer of the Canadian Newspaper Association.

“We're talking about a fundamental democratic right.”

The CNA findings reflect the experiences of many individuals who have independently sought out government-held information that affects their lives.

Rhonda Truckel has been fighting for six years to get access to a police file containing the details of her brother's murder.

Art Middleton, her only sibling, was shot in the back of the head in 2000 in a Hamilton apartment building — a crime for which his killer pleaded guilty and is serving a life sentence.

The evidence gathered in the police investigation — autopsy and crime scene photos, forensic test results, police officer's notes and other documents — remain locked away from her despite formal requests to see them.

“I need to know if there's anything in there that tells me what my brother's last words were,” Ms. Truckel said through tears.

“I need to see it for closure. I know he's gone, but in my heart I need to know what happened.”

Hamilton Police Services denied her original request and the Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner upheld the decision on appeal last year.

A clause in the province's freedom of information law prevented release of the records to anyone other than the executor of the deceased person's will until 30 years after death. Mr. Middleton didn't have a will.

While a recent change to the law gives officials some discretion to release information for compassionate reasons to next of kin, it remains unclear whether Ms. Truckel will be eligible to see her dead brother's file.

“I'm his sister. I'm his blood. I'm the one who had to bury him. I think I have a right to know what happened to my brother.”

Access to information held by police departments varied widely across the country, the audit found.

Statistics on reported crimes and resolved cases — figures that are widely published in cities such as Toronto, Hamilton, Montreal and Ottawa — were shrouded in secrecy in other places.

In Pembroke, for example, police officials wanted $1,200 for the information. In Laval, it took 39 days, repeated calls and arguments with officials to get an incomplete answer. In all, close to 30 per cent of requests for the crime numbers were denied or slapped with fees.

Each request for information began with a visit to a government office, hospital, health district or police station, where reporters — acting as citizens but not concealing their identity as journalists — simply asked for the information.

In the 112 in-person visits, 46 resulted in records being disclosed — a 41-per-cent success rate.

The remaining 66 requests went to Stage 2 of the audit — formal written requests for the information under the appropriate provincial or federal information law.

In 35 cases, the information requested was partly or entirely denied, or there was no response within the legislated time limit.

The audit's conclusions were consistent with last year's findings that showed difficulties in collecting what should be easily accessible information.

The public's right to know is not being defended by information laws in Canada, said Sergio Poggione, a 15-year federal access to information director and president of the Canadian Access and Privacy Association, which represents officers at all levels of government who administer information requests from the public.

A lack of resources and training in government offices is part of the problem, he said. But perhaps the more serious challenge to government transparency is the attitude of many in the senior bureaucracy, he said.

“You're trying to get information for the public. But when we send our request up to [senior staff] they're very reticent to co-operate because they don't like the program in the first place,” said Mr. Poggione, former director of access to information and privacy for the federal Immigration and Refugee Board.

“Several senior people have said to me quite bluntly, ‘We don't understand why you exist. You're just a hindrance. What right does the public have to know? We run things our way.'”

Among the methods of undermining information laws is a failure to create records in the first place, Mr. Poggione said. If reasons for government decisions aren't documented, there's nothing to release to the public, he said.

“At first, you'd have minutes or tapes of meetings being kept of executive meetings. Once they were asked for [by the public] they died down until they totally disappeared and nobody kept minutes at all. So the corporate history and memory disappears with it.”

The audit findings turned up some troubling inconsistencies across the country.

While some public officials provided verbal answers to researchers' questions on the spot, the information wasn't always correct.

When a reporter in St. John's inquired about bonuses paid to hospital executives in the city, he was told no such payments had been made.

But a formal follow-up request under the province's information legislation turned up a different answer.

One hospital CEO was paid a “cash performance bonus in the full amount of five percent of his base salary” in April, the documents showed.

New Brunswick was a conspicuous trouble spot in the audit, in part because provincial information legislation doesn't cover municipalities.

In Fredericton, police officials denied a request for crime statistics on the grounds that the provincial Department of Justice “does not keep or file that information.”

A request for the same information in Moncton was also denied.

Similarly, the regional health authorities in both Fredericton and Moncton refused to identify hospital executives who received bonus payments or to break down how much they were paid in each of the past three years.

In Saskatchewan, requesters in both Regina and Saskatoon received hospital administration bonus payments after filing formal requests.

In Calgary, a requester was able to get dollar figures on the bonus payments, but with the names of the recipients removed.

Federally, five of the six written requests for information on pandemic preparations remain outstanding more than five months after being filed with the government.

Health Canada responded to just one request — reporting that the records did not exist — and asked for a 60-day extension on the other requests, beyond the legislated 30-day limit. Those extensions expired without response on July 4.

Federal Information Commissioner John Reid, who is retiring this month after eight years in the position, said bureaucratic secrecy has remained firmly entrenched during his tenure.

“I would say the culture of secrecy has not significantly altered with the bureaucracy. Politicians that become ministers become easily seduced by the attractions of secrecy.

“To maintain those legal rights of access to government information, citizens have to take an active role in preserving what is there and pressing for improvements.”

But many Canadians who have independently pressed for government openness continue to complain the system is slow, costly and labyrinthine. Robert Cribb is a Toronto Star reporter. This story is written with the reports of 60 journalists from 39 newspapers across the country.