The Ontario Press Council in late 1998 urged the provincial government to withdraw a proposal to extend rules under which municipal councils may close meetings to the public and press.

Municipal Affairs Minister Al Leach was noncommittal in response to a letter from the Press Council. Noting that others had expressed similar concerns, he said in a letter that he would consider all comments before introducing a new act.

In addition to issues covered by the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, there now are seven subject headings under which discussion may properly be held in a closed session. The Press Council objects to the proposed addition of an eighth of each municipality's own choosing.

Explaining the government's thinking, Mr. Leach said a number of municipalities have suggested that the current list is too restrictive. The Press Council said giving local councils authority to establish their own rules for closed meetings may seem like an exercise in democracy but it provides an opportunity for some to go too far, as happened all too often in the past.

The Council, whose membership includes 38 dailies and 173 community and specialty newspapers, is mandated by its constitution to review and report on attempts to restrict access to information of public interest. Beginning in the early 1980s, it campaigned for 16 years in an effort to get various provincial governments to set basic rules governing meetings of councils and other municipal bodies.

The campaign was prompted by complaints from newspapers that some councils were scheduling closed meetings to conceal actions from the public and media rather than because the matters being discussed required confidentiality. For example, some councils relied on closed committee-of-the-whole sessions to discuss the full agenda before holding open meetings to rubber-stamp committee decisions with little or no debate. And there is reason to believe this practice has not completely disappeared.

In late 1992 the government of the day identified seven subject areas under which councils could close meetings. They are security of property, personal matters, acquisition of land, labour relations, litigation, solicitor-client privilege and the existence of another act mandating that discussion be in camera.

The Press Council and the Canadian Daily Newspaper Association (now the Canadian Newspaper Association) which participated in the campaign, expressed satisfaction with the draft.

The Press Council's letter said it regards legitimate issues covered by privacy legislation as well as the seven existing categories as sufficient for closing a meeting to the public and press.

It added that it joined the Ontario Community Newspapers Association in a recommendation that councils and other municipal bodies be required to inform the public about the class or item that will be discussed at a closed meeting and to identify by name a legal matter that is already on the public record.

TOP OF PAGE