Opening the doors: Shining a light on how Ontario is governed

A symbolic swearing-in on the Queen’s Park lawn was the metaphor for a more open government

The swearing in of the Liberal cabinet June 26, 1985 was the first visual demonstration of Premier David Peterson’s commitment to a government “without walls or barriers.”

Following the outdoor ceremony in front of the Ontario Legislature that drew an estimated crowd of 5,000, the public was invited inside to tour the halls, meeting rooms and Legislative chamber that formed their seat of provincial government. The new ministers retreated to the cabinet room for a photo op with the print and broadcast news media prior to the first meeting of a Liberal Executive Counsel of Ontario in more than four decades.

For a few minutes the lights shone and the cameras flashed, then the news media was asked to leave so the ministers could get down to business. Support staff took their seats by one wall. An elderly woman was among them. She didn’t appear to be in the young government’s employ and was asked if she was there on business.

“No,” she said. “I just want to watch.”

She was thanked for her interest, but advised that cabinet meetings were private. She departed to join others touring the Legislature.

With tongue in cheek, the premier commented: “That’s taking Open Government a bit too far!”

The government was, however, committed to a transparency unachieved by any Canadian government, provincial or federal, up until then. The principle that the public had a right to access the information gathered in its name shaped one of the first pieces of legislation put before the House.

The previous Progressive Conservative government made claims of openness, but its transparency was, in the opinion of one observer, opaque.

Ripe for a change in philosophy

Under the previous government, citizens had no legal access to key information on government activities and deliberations. Personal and private information could be shared by government agencies with anyone they chose, without the individual’s approval. This guarded approach to the public’s access to information blocked the view of multiple unfair workplace practices.

Inequities existed across the province. Companies could pay women less than men for work of equal value under the law. Companies could arbitrarily refuse to negotiate with unions when workers collectively voted to organize.

While multiculturalism was a grand principle in Canada, the face of Ontario’s population was scarcely reflected in the leadership of government agencies or cabinet. (No man or woman of colour had ever been appointed a minister or deputy minister, and there was scant representation by women in elected office or as heads of agencies.)

Discrimination was also an everyday practice against homosexuals.

After 42 years of unbroken power, political patronage was rampant, from the loftiest positions of power to clerical positions at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO). One senior Tory minister excused the practice. “You don’t hire your enemies,” he said. Lucrative contracts for government advertising were funnelled toward favoured firms. One example was weekly placements in ethnic publications, doled out by a Tory-appointed advertising czar who controlled the ebb and flow of contracts.

The Liberal response was the creation of an advertising review board to field all bids from advertising firms.

Similarly, an appointments office was created to field potential candidates for agencies and other government office. Applicants and contenders were judged as much based on competence and merit as by political inclination. The policy led to the appointment of a broad cross-section of officials and public representatives, including many well-known advocates for government and social reform.

Moving government outside Toronto

Steps would also be taken to move some of the many ministries headquartered at Queen’s Park and Toronto to parts of the province where a sense of alienation prevailed.

In a commonsense move, the headquarters of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was moved to Guelph, home of the province’s largest agricultural research centre.

More than 1,200 permanent positions were ultimately transferred to Northern Ontario. This included moving the Ontario Lottery Corporation to Sault Ste. Marie, along with the Forestry Division of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The head office of the Ministry of Correctional Services was moved to North Bay and that of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines to Sudbury.

The administration of the Ontario Student Assistance program was transferred to Thunder Bay, as was the Registrar General Branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.
The initiatives were outlined in Peterson’s first address as premier at the swearing in. He pledged “a government without walls, without barriers.” He promised to consult broadly, as a way to develop sound policy as well as to build consensus for policy initiatives. This was a major break from a government emboldened by decades of self-serving practice. It presaged…

• Measures to make government more open and transparent through freedom of information legislation, electronic Hansard (television and bilingual translation) in the house, the release of government information such a polling data and reports, greatly reducing patronage appointments, opening up contracts for advertising and establishing integrity guidelines for ministers and legislative members…

• Passage of equity legislation to enforce fair workplace practices for woman and visible minorities, and increase the appointments of under-represented groups in senior civil service positions…

• Supporting the reform agendas of interest groups such as environmentalists, women’s rights advocates, visible minorities and marginalized populations, while passing legislation to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The Premier’s commitment shaped a new way of governing in Ontario, which one adviser encapsulated in a truism once uttered by Chicago’s late mayor Richard Dailey: “Good government is good politics.” But it wasn’t just political imperatives that drove the Peterson Years. It was the need to recognize the significant social and economic changes that had been occurring within Ontario during the decades following World War II, and to fashion a modern adaptable government to meet the challenges those changes raised.

Replacing opaque government with transparency

The premier’s invitation for Ontarians to tour their Legislature upon the arrival of the new government, was more than a symbolic gesture, as evidenced by the thousands who took up the invitation. It was more than novel. It was a literal demonstration that Peterson meant business when he made the pledge to end “opaque” government and achieve transparency.

Within the Legislature, television was expanded in the House, increasing the number of cameras and providing the editor with greater freedom to focus on activities throughout the chamber. It broke from the federal model of fixing the camera on the sole speaker, to the exclusion of other pertinent scenes occurring within party caucuses. It proved so popular it was picked up by the mother of Parliaments at Westminster in Britain.

In the media studio, where all parties and interest groups frequency made public statements and unveiled policies, Peterson turned over the authority to the Legislative Press Gallery to conduct news conferences, choose questioners and control attendance. Outside the legislative chamber, a “unimic” – a single microphone with multiple plug-ins – was positioned to enable all broadcast, television and print reporters to access government and opposition without the crowding created by traditional scrums. The premier would also make himself readily available to answer reporters’ questions when arriving at his office.

Freedom of information and protection of privacy

The cornerstone of Peterson’s Open Government initiative was the passage of legislation to extend to the public freedom of information and protection of personal privacy.

A comprehensive bill was introduced in the Legislature within 16 days of the swearing in. The speed reflected not only the government’s desire to signal consequential change, but also an acknowledgement that the political will to see through such legislation could dwindle over time, as politicians entrenched themselves in government. As the proposed legislation made its way through Cabinet, more than one minister cautioned that “if we don’t pass this now, we may not want to six months from now.”

The freedom of information portion of the legislation was premised on the principle that government information should be more readily available to the public, that exceptions to access to government information should be limited and specific, and that decisions by ministers and government officials on what information would be disclosed should be reviewed by an independent commissioner accountable only to the legislature. In terms of the privacy aspect, the legislation strengthened protections for personal information in government files and data banks and gave individuals access to personal information relating to them.

In introducing the bill, the Attorney-General, Ian Scott, noted that at some future point information made public under this bill could embarrass the government of the day, but that such was the cost of parliamentary democracy and open administration. He added that where there is true openness in government, “we will have a society that is enlightened by information and able to make thoughtful choices as to the future shape of our society.”

So, the elderly lady who inadvertently invaded the Peterson government’s first cabinet meeting was not privy to all of the necessarily private discussions and debates challenging the ministersas they took office back in June 1985. But the principle prevailed at that time – and should to this day: Government “without walls orbarriers.”