Nova Scotia needs an open-meetings law
I am concerned that the council of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) was debating its own pay in closed session with no observers permitted. I am pleased that council is resolving to correct its practices.
We have a problem here that goes beyond the CBRM. Actually, I am disappointed at the extent to which open meetings of public bodies are a novelty rather than a norm in Nova Scotia.
In 2014, the government of Nova Scotia, led by Premier Stephen McNeil, eliminated district health authorities, centralizing the governance in Halifax. The new board of the Nova Scotia Health Authority (NSHA) did not allow observers at its meetings.
Only this past summer did the NSHA board react to public and opposition pressure by voting to “phase in” board meetings that the public could see and hear.
Earlier this year, the government of Nova Scotia eliminated the elected regional school boards, again centralizing the governance in Halifax. McNeil and Education Minister Zach Churchill assured Nova Scotians that a new, appointed Provincial Advisory Council on Education would do better than the regional boards in representing the concerns of citizens.
The regional school board meetings were open to reporters and the public to observe. By contrast, the meetings of the new provincial council are closed to reporters and the public.
Another example: Nova Scotia is one of the few jurisdictions in North America where meetings of regional public library boards do not have to be public. These boards, which make important final decisions (not just recommendations) about public libraries, consist of elected municipal councillors and citizens appointed by municipal councils and the province.
It might be argued that most of the meetings of a health authority or a library board are not riveting and would not attract many observers. That is not the point. As a citizen, I want to know that I can observe if I wish. As an educator, I want to be able to tell my political science students that they can sit in on a meeting of a public board that is deliberating on public affairs. They should be able to hear the debate, not just the decision after the fact.
Scrutiny and potential scrutiny keep people accountable.
Nova Scotia should adopt an Open Meetings Act. Such a short bill would amend the Municipal Government Act, the Education Act, the Public Libraries Act, the Nova Scotia Health Authority Act and other statutes.
Not always do I hold up American practices as models, but the “Government in the Sunshine Act” is a good example to look at. Passed in 1976, it is a federal law that has counterparts in all U.S. states. With 10 exceptions, it provides that meetings of any public body must be open to public observation.
Among other things, a Nova Scotia Open Meetings Act — our version of the Sunshine Act — would tighten section 22 of the Municipal Government Act. That’s the section that deals with in camera (confidential) meetings. The tightened law would require that a motion be made in public session to go into confidential session and the reason for doing so. As Ontario has done, the amended section 22 would also require a municipality to designate a closed-meeting reviewer to handle concerns or delegate that role to the provincial ombudsman.
To provide clarity to councillors and the public, the new Nova Scotia Open Meetings Act could also tighten up the MGA’s definitions for what’s allowed to be discussed in confidential session.
In the case of RSJ Holdings (2007), the Supreme Court of Canada found that the City of London, Ont., was wrong to go into confidential session to discuss an interim control (land-use) by law. That council cited “potential litigation.” The court found that although a lawsuit against the city was likely, the essence of the matter was land use and not litigation. Therefore, the debate should have been conducted in public. This “essence” test could be brought directly into the wording of the law so that there is less ambiguity about definitions.
For three years now, the Department of Municipal Affairs has been reviewing the Municipal Government Act. That’s a long time. That review should not hold up an Open Meetings Act, which would apply not only to the MGA but to other statutes as well.
And in the meantime, there is nothing to stop public bodies themselves from passing by-laws or resolutions to ensure that, with a few exceptions, their meetings are open to public observation.
Secrecy and paternalism, even if unintended, will not help our communities to develop and will not draw out the gifts of talented, thoughtful citizens.