One Place to Look; The Ontario Public Library Strategic Plan (1990)

One Place to Look; The Ontario Public Library Strategic Plan. Prepared by the Ontario Public Library Strategic Planning Group. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Culture and Communications, 1990. 68 p., illus. Also published in French with title: Une voie d'accès à l'information.

Soon after the passage of the seminal Public Libraries Act in 1985 by the Progressive Conservative government in Ontario, provincial library planners in the Ontario Library Association (OLA) began focusing on information policy and strategic planning in 1987. The strategic plans which the newly formed provincially-funded Ontario Library Service (OLS) areas began after 1989 were limited in scope, and, as a result, librarians and trustees from municipalities, the OLA, and professional groups began to concentrate on all of Ontario. An agreed upon strategic vision for all types of libraries would further cooperative work and develop consistency and direction that was absent in legislative library provisions. After the Ministry of Culture and Communications (MCC) agreed to finance a province-wide plan through the OLA, the public library community actively began the difficult task of finding common ground. The previous 1982 extensive process and report by Peter Bassnett in the early 1980s, Ontario Public Libraries: The Provincial Role in a Triad of Responsibilities, had struggled to find consensus and dealt with a simpler technological environment. There now was a new opportunity at the outset of a new decade when the term ‘electronic library’ was gaining increasing parlance.

By the start of the 1990s, public-sector strategic planning meant the development of a mission statement, a more complete analysis of the factors influencing library service, specific recommendations about goals, long-term objectives to achieve these goals, and recommendations for implementing the new vision. An inclusive method could lead to agreement about principal services and structures. By mid-1988, a small planning group chaired by Elizabeth Hoffman, a founding member of the Association of Canadian College and University Ombudsmen and a Toronto Public Library trustee, came together to plot Ontario’s first strategic plan for library service. For many years, librarians and trustees had looked to briefs, regulations, and legislative provisions to define the library’s role and functions. Now, legislative provisions were not to be the outcome. Now, planners had to submit convincing recommendations to many partners and hope for a successful implementation process on the part of many libraries across the province—large or small!

An Ontario Public Library Strategic Planning Group (SPG) began its process in March 1988, forming teams to prepare reports, such as technology, and developing a mission statement that later became a Statement of Purpose. Elizabeth Cummings for the Libraries and Community Information Branch (LCIB) and Margaret Andrewes for the OLA maintained a communication plan and helped coordinate the work of the SPG to support its deliberations. For months, the SPG attended meetings to outline the process and collate information on areas of fundamental interest, such as service to northern Ontario, equity of access, education for staff, technology, or funding. The task groups studied and analyzed major issues, and by summer 1990, the SPG was ready to finalize its drafts after receiving more than two hundred briefs and presentations at local public hearings. A final document, One Place to Look, was released in time for the November 1990 OLA Toronto conference. At this convention, there was some optimism about the organization’s strategic document. So, plans were commenced to form a consensus and implement as many SPG recommendations as possible. All stakeholders, i.e., the provincial government, municipal councils, library boards, and library users, needed to be proactive in developing their strategy for implementing One Place to Look in their community.

One Place to Look was a progressive vision that sought to situate libraries on “the crest of the information wave” that was beginning to sweep the globe. In 1989, the National Science Foundation’s NSFNET in the United States had gone online, and in the following year, Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, unveiled the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML). In 1991, CERN introduced the World Wide Web and the number of websites began to proliferate. The development of Netscape Navigator, Yahoo!, and a Microsoft browser for Windows 95 quickly followed. The ‘electronic library’ would soon give way to the ‘digital library.’

Nevertheless, several themes in One Place to Look were familiar. The mantra of “access to the right information at the right time” harked back to an earlier 20th-century motto about books: “the right book for the right reader.” The cornerstones for progress would be:
(1) equitable access to information; (2) helping people find the right information; (3) provision of materials for pleasure and relaxation; (4) free access to resources; and (5) the library as a lifelong educational agency (p. 13). Four goals were to achieve these societal purposes, each with basic objectives and several recommendations. It was a plan with a purpose, ways and means to get there, and a collaborative approach that would give all participants a common purpose and direction. Its four fundamental goals were:
1. Every Ontarian will have access to the information resources within the province through an integrated system of partnerships among all types of information providers;
2. Every Ontarian will receive public library service that is accurate, timely, and responsive to individual and community needs;
3. Every Ontarian will receive public library service that meets recognized levels of excellence from trained and service-oriented staff governed by responsible trustees;
4. Every Ontarian will have access to the resources and services of all public libraries without barriers or charges.

Detailed objectives were the key to the entire strategic planning process because they linked goals with outcomes. There were twenty objectives, which were grouped around several major concerns:
—development of an information policy and strategy for Ontario;
— an integrated, province-wide public library information network;
— promotion of effective units of service;
— effective, electronic access to all collections in the province-wide network;
— a program to preserve printed and electronic information;
— programs to encourage innovation and removal of barriers to service;
— an education program for trustees to provide leadership;
— development of staff expertise;
— removal of barriers to service due to “race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status, or handicap;”
— equity of access to service for all Ontarians, regardless of geography;
— public library service and access to the provincial network for all Ontarians without charge;
— funding to support the integrated, province-wide public library information network.

One Place to Look was an inspired visionary document. At a time when a 1989 Gallup Canada Survey revealed that only 43% of the people it interviewed were aware that they could phone the public library for information, the SPG was saying that people would be able to access materials in their libraries from the comfort of their homes. For many people, the futuristic vision was difficult to square with current conditions. Unfortunately, the strategic plan was rolled out just as North America entered a major recession that ravaged Ontario between 1990–92. Government revenue at all levels shrank; consequently, hard choices were made, and cutback management became more important. Although the MCC announced in early 1991 that its funding for libraries would not be cut and that money for Indian Bands and libraries would be increased, government per capital library revenue peaked in 1992 and remained flat for another three years. At the same time, some library services, such as reference and circulation, continued to grow.

Financial considerations came to the fore because revenue was stagnant; thus, library boards and CEOs seriously investigated other sources, such as budget trimming and user fees. Deliberations on strategic planning were also lessened by the rapid development of the Information Highway and the need for libraries to develop Internet services and expend more on technological considerations. One Place to Look required two critical structures for successful implementation: first, a central provincial office to coordinate and manage an integrated provincial network; second, a Strategic Planning Council with representation from all library organizations to advise and recommend policy to the coordinating body based on an agreement in the broader community. However, provincial governments for decades had been unenthusiastic about establishing a central coordinating body to provide province-wide administration for library services. The two 1990s provincial OLS agencies (South and North) were a means, not formal agencies, to carry out liaison, coordination, and advisory services across the province. Generally, the period 1991–95 was punctuated by cabinet shuffles and ministry realignments; consequently, there were few opportunities to prioritize libraries or expand the Libraries and Community Information Branch’s (LCIB) role. From its reorganization in the late 1970s, the LCIB (especially under Wil Vanderelst) had actively promoted coordination among Ontario library boards and had worked to improve their efficiency. In 1993, the LCIB did publish a short statement, One Place to Look: Ontario Public Library Strategic Plan, 1990: 3 Years Later, without much fanfare. As well, work towards formation of Network 2000, an an effort to connect Ontarians to the global information highway through their public libraries, had commenced. However, in 1995, the LCIB was reformed into a new Ministry and its functions merged with a new, broader-focused Cultural Partnerships Branch.

For strategic planners, the recession, the lack of government continuity, plus the absence of a major coordinating body at the provincial level were major impediments. One promising development was the creation of an Ontario Public Libraries Strategic Directions Council (SDC) in 1992 that began working on marketing, telecommunications, and revision of the strategic plan. This group consisted of representatives from all library sectors: all public libraries; the OLS and LCIB; Metro Toronto Library; and the OLA. As a practical consideration, additional project money for a second-generation network, INFO, the Information Network for Ontario, was put into place in 1992 by the MCC to create a provincial database for distribution on cd-roms. INFO could then connect with a regional high-speed network, ONet, to become part of a larger publicly accessible enterprise. Later, in February 996, the SDC released a short discussion paper: A Call to Action: Specific Initiatives to Advance Public Library Development in Ontario, but it failed to generate sufficient attention during the ‘Common Sense Revolution’ turbulence unleashed by the Progressive Conservative government.

During this period, the OLA emerged as the biggest booster of library strategic planning. At OLA’s 1991 conference, a new division, the Ontario Library and Information Technology Association (OLITA), was created to address the impact of the burgeoning Information Society. In May 1992, OLA published A Proposal for an Information Policy for Ontario which updated a report from the 1989 exercise leading to One Place to Look. To interest small libraries under 10,000 in strategic planning, OLA’s conferences in 1991 and 1992 featured “The Hometown Library” mini-conference sessions for trustees and staff. To raise information awareness and sustain One Place to Look, OLITA began to promote interdisciplinary exchanges, research, standards, monitoring of new technologies, and development of models for library systems and networks. In 1992, it joined with the ALA to sponsor a series of meetings on international technology, “Ten Days to 2000,” which heightened consciousness about networking, the Information Highway or the Internet. In the following year, 1993, OLA formed the Coalition for Public Information with representatives outside libraries as a voice for public participation in the emerging telecommunications-information field. Partnerships like the Coalition represented one of the objectives the Strategic Planning Group had recommended to broaden the action base on important issues. Thus, on some fronts, the strategic planning process was progressing despite challenging economic conditions.

Nonetheless, the effects of the recession hampered OLA’s ability to promote libraries at a crucial time. Public sector realignments exposed libraries and librarianship to the rationalization of work and technological expertise in an increasingly unionized workplace and magnified the weaker form of tiered library governance (province-municipality-board) and multiple professional and trustee associations. For a time, OLA was coping with declining membership and finances. Staffing levels for librarians and technicians had moderated after the Bassnett Report in the early 1980s, and there was little flexibility in personnel budgets. One Place to Look continued to be a rallying cry into the early 2000s. Many of its objectives were a work in progress for many years: improved guidelines for smaller libraries, certification programs and better training for staffing, more effective electronic access, a program to preserve printed and born-digital information, and other worthy activities. For the most part, the strategic plan was eventually a successful endeavour and a model for future library planners. References to it still appear in library publications, and the catchy phrase, ‘One Place to Look,’ continues to reverberate in library language, in many ways supplanting older library mottos that emphasized reading and books.

One Place to Look has been digitized and is available for viewing on the Internet Archive.

My earlier 2022 blog on the Bassnett Report is also available for viewing.

Ontario Libraries: A Province-Wide Survey and Plan, 1965 by Francis R. St. John Library Consultants

St John, (Francis R.) Library Consultants, Inc. Ontario Libraries: A Province-Wide Survey and Plan, 1965. Toronto: Ontario Library Association, 1965. 182 p.

At the beginning of the 1960s, Ontario’s public, school, university, government, and special libraries were trying to cope with a rapidly growing population, changing technology, and staff shortages. The Department of Education had made a few incremental improvements after the Wallace Report of 1957, but leaders in the library sector expected more effective planning and financial support from Queen’s Park. When William Davis, the Conservative M.P. from Peel County, was appointed Minister of Education in 1962, the Ontario Library Association (OLA) invited him to speak at its 1963 conference. The new Minister did not disappoint: he spoke about the importance of libraries as community agents and stressed better planning was necessary to achieve their service goals. Most importantly, he offered to finance studies sponsored by the OLA.

The OLA accepted the offer of financial assistance from the Minister and formed a Research Committee in 1964 under John Parkhill, head of Toronto Public Library’s (TPL) reference library, to consider study options for the province. This committee chose Francis R. St. John, the former director of the Brooklyn Public Library and a well-respected American library consultant, to conduct a provincial-wide study of all library types, which included universities because William Davis had added the newly formed Ministry of University Affairs to his cabinet duties in 1964. St. John’s firm began work in January 1965 and released a final report in February 1966.

While the American consultant surveyed libraries in the province, major educational changes were being planned. William Davis was a dynamic minister: during his tenure, he oversaw the formation of a new community college system and two new universities, created an educational television network, increased education spending dramatically, and amalgamated thousands of small school boards across the province. The Provincial Library Service (PLS), headed by William Roedde, studied legislation to eliminate less relevant clauses (e.g., the per capita free library rate, free library status, and local plebiscites to establish libraries), to abolish Association Libraries, and authorize the establishment of five regional library co-operatives. In the library sector, studies proposed a new library school for the Western University and strengthened existing university library education in Toronto and Ottawa.

Francis St. John’s work was the comprehensive study of school, university, special, and public libraries that OLA had sought for a decade. The report was a singular milestone in large-scale library planning in Ontario, especially for public libraries. The major trends in the early 1960s—regionalism, coordinated provincial planning, and service to smaller libraries in rural areas—were emphasized in 63 specific recommendations. Through his consultations, St. John emphasized the need for cooperative development and promotion of larger service units. The report specifically recommended the encouragement of larger regional units (p. 37-39) and that conditional provincial grants be directed to regions rather than individual public library boards. Association libraries (154 in 1964) were to lose their grants and be encouraged to contract with county or regional libraries (p. 31-34). No more county library co-operatives could be formed; the report recommended their operation should be transformed into stronger county library boards. The task of centralized processing for all school and public libraries within a region was assigned to the regional library co-operatives (p. 43-51). Each regional system would have a reference centre responsible for information resources within the region (p. 52-58). St. John revisited the idea of TPL serving as a central provincial resource centre and receiving provincial funding for this task (p. 59-61). TPL would also maintain a central bibliographic database of holdings to facilitate provincial interloan and interaction with the National Library union catalogue operation. The report advised that orientation programs be developed for new library trustees for governance. A chapter on library legislation put forward 15 recommendations, especially regarding regional governance and operations.

Within the Department of Education, St. John advised the consolidation of all library functions in a single Library Division where the PLS, public libraries, elementary and secondary schools, universities and colleges, and government libraries would integrate their work and develop plans (p. 19-21). The Travelling Library service was to be eliminated (p. 13-15), and the PLS upgraded with more staff.  Provincial direction would improve after the creation of a new Ontario Provincial Library Council (OPLC) to make recommendations to the Minister respecting the development and coordination of library service (p. 22-24).

Libraries in elementary and secondary schools and those in higher education required a different approach than regionalism. St. John was critical of school libraries and proposed that schools with at least 150 students be required to maintain a centralized school library with holdings of 3,000 to 5,000 books or ten books per capita in larger schools. A school with 250 pupils should have at least one full-time librarian. Centralized cataloguing at the University of Toronto was proposed for colleges and universities supported by government financing. St. John recognized the Toronto library had already been asked by the government to compile basic collections of 35,000 volumes each for three new universities (Trent, Guelph, and Brock) and two Toronto regional campuses (Scarborough and Erindale). The Ontario New Universities Library Project began in October 1963 with a budget of $1.3 million for book purchases over the following 3-1/2 years. The Committee of University Presidents was urged to support the concept of collection building to avoid duplication of resources. Further, the report proposed that the government provide financing to build in-depth research collections. St. John also recommended the government finance a long-distance facsimile experiment between the three largest collections at Toronto, Western, and Queens for at least five years. As well, the report agreed with plans for higher library education in the three universities, and it recommended the appointment of trained librarians and specialists to school districts and regional co-operatives to serve as area supervisors and field advisors.

St. John’s approach to government and special libraries proposed more efficient, systematic operations: a system of depository libraries to receive provincial publications overseen by the Library Division in the Dept. of Education; centralized cataloguing and classification of documents by TPL for designated depository libraries; and submission of holdings into the proposed TPL bibliographic database. However, the report’s influence was limited. It was not until 1970 that the Ontario government established a depository library system, and, in the following year, the Ministry of Government Services began to publish its Ontario Government Publications Monthly Checklist. Also in 1970, an Ontario Government Librarians’ Council was established.

The initial press reaction to the report acknowledged that Ontario had fallen from the ranks of library leadership. It was a shock to some. William Davis immediately announced that provincial funding would be increased by 50% to $5 million, a new Public Libraries Act would be introduced in the legislature, another supervisor would be added to the PLS, and that the Globe and Mail journalist, J. Bascom St. John, would head up a committee to study the recommendations. Davis relied on policy advisors because his departments were expanding rapidly to reshape Ontario’s educational system. The Department of Education was about to examine all aspects of education through a Provincial Committee on the Aims and Objectives of Education (the Hall-Dennis Committee) established in 1965. The concept of “open education,” whereby students learned on their own progress rather than adhering to standardized grade steps, was on the march. When the OLA met in Ottawa to discuss St. John’s findings in April 1966, it endorsed and amplified many recommendations, although the president, Leonard Freiser, Librarian at Toronto’s Education Centre Library, criticized the report’s focus on organization, not service delivery.
 
After a short time, on 7 June 1966, William Davis announced a completely revised Public Libraries Act, 1966: “It [the St. John report] recommended that legislation be provided for an Ontario provincial library council and advisory council and that provisions for regional library service be improved. We have accepted these recommendations and followed certain other recommendations in the report.” He described the four main legislative sections:
▪ the powers and responsibilities of library boards;
▪ the role of the newly designed 23-member OPLC to develop and coordinate service under the Minister’s control;
▪ the role of the 14 regional library co-operatives with Metro Toronto included in current amendments to the Metropolitan Toronto Act;
▪ the strengthening of county libraries.
The new Act eliminated some prominent vestiges of the past—the need for local plebiscites to establish libraries (1882), the requirement to be a British subject (1905), the voluntary Library Association form of governance (1909), and the minimum per capita library rate of 1920. However, the PLS would continue to play a limited leadership role because St. John’s concept of a strengthened Library Division coordinating library activities in all types of libraries was rejected. The primary duties of the Director of PLS were to supervise the Act’s operation, promote and encourage the extension of service, serve as non-voting secretary of the Ontario Provincial Library Council, and oversee grant regulations.

There was little time to criticize or analyze the recommendations made by St. John. The new Libraries Act essentially refined the existing one initially formulated in 1920 and amended frequently over four decades. It was apparent the government did not intend to implement recommendations proposing the integration of library services across all educational sectors. Significantly, university and college libraries were moving independently: they rejected the idea of centralized coordination from the provincial government because they felt their interests lay within the post-secondary sector rather than regional groupings suggested by St. John. After the the Commission to Study the Development of Graduate Programmes in Ontario Universities (the Spinks Commission) reported the weak state of most Ontario university libraries in November 1966, the Committee of Presidents of Provincially-Assisted Universities in Ontario (CPUO) began to develop a co-operative approach to sharing existing resources and to initiate planning for expansion. This Council approved the creation of a provincial-wide university system to include reader services, an interlibrary transport service, a bibliographic centre at the University of Toronto, and the formation of the Ontario Council of University Librarians, composed of the chief librarians, as an advisory body to the CPUO.

Community colleges agreed to form a Bibliocentre to acquire and process books centrally shortly after 1967. As well, school libraries remained outside regionalization efforts. The Ontario Teachers’ Federation published School Library Standards in 1966. The Dept. of Education increased funding for school resources and library facilities, followed by publication of The Library Handbook for Elementary Schools in Ontario in 1967. More courses for teacher-librarians were introduced to bolster assistance for students in learning to use library resources. Regarding government or special libraries, St. John was criticized for omitting reference to federal libraries, many of which were located in Ottawa. The public library sector became the main beneficiary of the St. John findings, although the OPLC as an advisory, coordinating body did not live up to its potential.

The report framed by Francis R. St. John served as a general guideline for a centralized system of libraries within a province. However, the Ontario government, indeed, librarians, trustees, and officials at all levels chose to continue in the traditional ‘type of library’ sectoral organization entrenched across North America. A multi-type library development model was laid to rest with the prospect that technology, not administrative organization, would suffice to develop all types of libraries into an interconnected network.

Report on Provincial Library Service in Ontario by W. Stewart Wallace (1957)

Report on Provincial Library Service in Ontario by W. Stewart Wallace. Toronto: Ontario Department of Education, January 1957. 62 p. with six appendices published between 1944–55.

By the early 1950s, the plans originally made for postwar library reconstruction ideas were only partially achieved in Ontario and Canada. Passage of the National Library Act of 1952 and the official recognition of W. Kaye Lamb as National Librarian were the most successful endeavours. After 1945, the Ontario Library Association (OLA) relied on briefs and presented development plans based on ideas prevalent during the war’s reconstruction phase. The Ontario Department of Education had improved its grant formulas and regulations, introduced certification of librarians, amended older legislation, and added staff to its provincial library branch directed by Angus Mowat. Despite these improvements for local services, there was evident disenchantment with the 1946 grant formula that issued lesser amounts for more populous municipalities. In the case of Toronto, an arbitrary $50,000 ceiling in the early 1950s limited the board to about a quarter of what it could expect to receive, i.e. almost $200,000. Also, plans for coordinated regional or metropolitan types of service voiced in the OLA’s briefs and discussed at conferences had not taken root in legislative provisions.

In the face of this perceived inactivity, the OLA’s Provincial Library Committee report of 1952 became its most important postwar response. It was an elaboration of OLA’s 1944-45 briefs on what a ‘Provincial Library’ could do and how it might function. It was a call for further study. Many in the library field believed promotion of larger units of service—consolidation of smaller libraries into townships, free counties, and regional libraries—might be a better strategy than forming a central, provincial library, likely in Toronto. However, in 1954 at OLA’s Kitchener conference, the decision was made to prioritize a ‘Provincial Library.’ Other provinces had formed Provincial Libraries that offered direct book services and encouraged regional services because it was an efficient way to deliver services from Victoria, Regina, and Halifax. In May 1956, the Minister of Education announced that W. Stewart Wallace, who had retired as chief librarian at the University of Toronto in 1954, would conduct a study of Ontario public libraries. It was felt that Dr. Wallace’s lengthy experience and knowledge of library collections in Toronto could be beneficial in creating a plan for Ontario’s development. He was instructed to:
(a) to study the need for a Provincial Library Service in Ontario;
(b) to survey the probable requirements of such a Service;
(c) to study the present operation of similar Library Services in other provinces of Canada and certain states in the United States; and
(e) to report findings and make recommendations to the Honourable the Minister of Education before the close of the fiscal year.
Given his limited time frame, Dr. Wallace chose to focus on incremental solutions. His personal survey eschewed social science methodology and statistical analysis. The report he returned at the end of the year exhibited many features inherent in earlier 20th-century library studies.

The concept of a large, central library (or system of libraries) had persisted since the OLA’s wartime Reconstruction Committee, which Dr. Wallace had chaired, proposed the Provincial Library model in March 1944. On exploring libraries in other Canadian provinces, he realized that more extensive, recently released reports had led to divergent outcomes. Two provinces, New Brunswick and Manitoba, had commissioned library surveys shortly before 1956. In New Brunswick, Peter Grossman reported in 1953 that a regional system of libraries was necessary, enabled by improved legislation and the appointment of a director of provincial library services. As a result, New Brunswick revamped its Library Services Act in 1954 to promote regional library systems. To the west, in Manitoba, a survey over an extended period, 1953-55, summarized by George Noble, led to a decentralized system whereby the Legislative Library assumed control of public library legislation. Library extension work (the open shelf system and travelling libraries) became part of the University of Manitoba. Thus, Manitoba divided authority for library development.  Across Canada, library administrative structures and services reflected the reality of different social, cultural, and economic conditions.

Dr. Wallace admitted his travels and interviews only reached a “small fraction” of Ontario’s libraries, but he felt he had visited a representative number. He also interviewed public library leaders, such as Angus Mowat and Freda Waldon. He came to reject the concept of an extensive, centralized Provincial Library and suggested the Department of Education provide more direction with four basic recommendations:
 1. The current Public Libraries Branch under the direction of Angus Mowat should be renamed Provincial Library Service (PLS) and the Director of Public Library Service be retitled Director of PLS;
 2. The proposed Director of PLS should inaugurate an interlibrary loan system to serve smaller libraries, and an “Open Shelf” system (books-by-mail on request from the PLS) to areas without library service in Ontario;
 3. The staff in the proposed PLS should be increased by adding (a) an inspector of public and regional libraries, (b) a provincial children’s librarian, and (c) at least three additional assistants to staff the new interloan and open shelf services; and
 4. Improved accommodation for the PLS, located at Huron Street in Toronto, should be expanded and refitted to facilitate the augmented duties and tasks of the proposed PLS.

The Wallace report recommendations were hardly sweeping by any means. From the outset, the report stressed continuity because a provincial library service already existed: “What those who have been advocating a Provincial Library or a Provincial Library Service have had in mind has not been, it would seem, something wholly new, but an extension and development of services already in existence.” (p. 9) Further, the recent development of the National Library at Ottawa after 1953 had brought on “radical” change: “To build in Toronto a Provincial Library which would duplicate on a provincial scale the resources of the National Library would seem to be, to a large extent, a needless duplication.” (p. 14) When Dr. Wallace factored in the resources of a dozen of Toronto’s largest libraries (e.g., the University of Toronto and Toronto Public Library) holding about three million volumes, he concluded that building “a brand new Provincial Library in Toronto” would result in needless duplication within the city itself. He listed some of the larger city libraries, observing that their resources should be available by interloan to other Ontario libraries (p. 19-20). He felt accumulating book stocks in a new central provincial library building would waste money.

Organizing services for the public, rather than building and administering a central collection in Toronto, should become the primary goal.  In this regard, Dr. Wallace followed New Brunswick’s example by rejecting the concept of having the Legislative Library, with approximately 140,000 volumes, as the nucleus for a central provincial collection: “The functions of the Legislative Library are so different from those of what is now the Public Libraries Branch that they have little in common.” (p. 15) The Legislative Library should concentrate on serving the elected members at Queen’s Park and the civil service. Its historic function of providing books to schools and teachers—a task it inherited from the Dept. of Education—could be “ironed out” in a new arrangement with the proposed PLS. Similarly, Wallace cast off the idea for the Toronto Public Library to serve as a core for a provincial library or service by arguing “that the administrative difficulties involved in tacking a provincial institution on to a municipal library would be far from negligible.” (p. 19)

Dr. Wallace felt that coordination of services, not collection building, should be the foremost responsibility of the PLS: it should be augmented by the addition of two inspectors, one for children’s services and one for county or regional libraries. These were not new recommendations—the Department of Education’s Hope Commission had made them in 1950. Two submissions made to Dr. Wallace from the OLA and the Canadian Library Association supported adding a children’s librarian to provide professional guidance (report appendices E and F). While Wallace was firm about the basic need for a children’s coordinator in the PLS, he was less certain about the success of regional library co-operatives. “Not only in Ontario, but in other provinces as well, I cannot help wondering whether the results have always been commensurate with the efforts put forth by those who have struggled (like missionaries trying to convert the heathen) to get regional libraries started. ... Nonetheless, he recommended the appointment of an officer of the PLS to foster the growth and development of regional libraries. (p. 17-18)

In sum, the Wallace Report on the department’s administration of public libraries did not break new ground. It removed the older notion, never clearly accepted, about a central Provincial Library in Toronto and followed the model of separating the Legislative Library from public libraries. The report did introduce some new provincial services—interlibrary loans and the open shelf system, a clearing house for requests, and book supply to communities with inadequate (or no) library services. The mechanics of how a provincial interlibrary loan system would operate were outside Dr. Wallace’s mandate, but he contemplated using a dedicated teleprinter service between the library branch and the National Library rather than establishing a separate union catalogue for Toronto libraries. In fact, by July 1957, a new telex low-speed data network for the transmission of messages would be in place on a Canada-wide basis, but Wallace lightheartedly admitted, “I am old-fashioned enough to believe a telephone in Toronto could solve the problem.” (p. 23). He also briefly reflected on fees for interloans, which librarians would return to many times in subsequent decades. He realized attempting to serve more than a million people without library service by better use of travelling libraries was quite a challenge. Establishing an “open shelf” system in Ontario would necessitate enlarged quarters in the building now occupied by the Public Libraries Branch (at 206 Huron St.), an increased appropriation for books, and an increased staff. The Travelling Libraries Division of the Branch could probably look after the “open shelf” system since they would presumably be using a common book-stock, but at least one new assistant should be appointed... (p. 24-25). The report concluded the immediate cost to the Department of Education would be only $30,000 a year: $20,000 for salaries of new employees and $10,000 for books, equipment, supplies, etc.

The Department of Education received Dr. Wallace’s Report at the start of 1957. At the OLA’s May 1957 annual meeting held in Toronto, the Minister of Education praised Dr. Wallace’s report and assured delegates the government would advance the cause of libraries. Angus Mowat digested the issues in the Wallace Report and submitted six of his own recommendations “at the least possible cost” later in 1957:
1. Enabling legislation for county public libraries based on existing municipal legislation with the expectation that counties would work closely with cities and towns, thereby superseding the existing county co-operatives;
2. Appointment of an Assistant Director of Public Library Service to promote and supervise county and regional library work and to assist with the administration of the Public Libraries Act and general promotion of service;
3. Appointment of a Supervisor of Children’s Library Service to select books for the travelling libraries and assist smaller libraries to develop their services;
4. Provincial funding for a regional library demonstration in northern Ontario for three years, after which local authorities would assume a “fair share” of financing;
5. Establishment of a system of interlibrary lending with the library branch providing coordination of requests and shipments. There would be compensation for larger libraries for lending books. Increased staffing and enlargement of the Travelling Libraries collection at Huron Street would also be necessary to fill requests;
6. After building up a sufficient stock of books and providing additional accommodation for the library branch, the open shelf system for Ontario could be implemented.

In due course, recommendations concerning the Wallace Report were implemented in stages. In April 1958, The Minister of Education, W.J. Dunlop, met with OLA’s Provincial Library Committee to review the Wallace report. It was agreed that the Report would be distributed at OLA’s annual meeting at Kingston and that two departmental appointments would be forthcoming. William A. Roedde (BLS, McGill, 1951) was introduced as the new Assistant Director of Public Library Service specializing in regional services at the end of May. Later, in the summer, Barbara J. Smith (BLS, Toronto, 1953), who had experience at Oshawa with children’s work, became Supervisor of Children’s Library Service. For its part, OLA established a special committee on library legislation and set to work examining how to encourage more substantial units of service and improve library service.

By the start of 1959, the revamped Public Libraries Branch was progressing toward implementing the Wallace report. In April 1959, W.J. Dunlop provided authorization for a grant of $30,000, thereby establishing a regional demonstration in Cochrane and Timiskaming districts, the Northeastern Regional Library Co-operative. The responsibility of these regional co-operatives was limited to helping member libraries by simply distributing books. Other improvements, such as strengthening reference services or coordinating interlibrary loan activity, was not contemplated. To prepare for the implementation of the open shelf service, expanded travelling libraries and an interloan system, space requirements and financial estimates were prepared to expand the Huron Street headquarters. A change of name to “Provincial Library Service” was approved to go into effect on 1 April 1959. The remaining Wallace report recommendations could be implemented during subsequent legislative years when more satisfactory accommodations were attained for travelling libraries and staff. In the Legislature, the Minister introduced The Public Libraries Amendment Act of 1959 to allow the formation of free county libraries and larger union boards. It received its third reading in March 1959. Further creation of county co-operatives under the older 1947 legislation was suspended. Now, a county library could be established when seventy-five percent of the municipalities asked a county council to pass an authorizing bylaw. Transitioning older co-operatives to county systems with a single tax base and responsibility for providing services to all parts of a county was a progressive step that had taken a long time to achieve. Simple administrative advantages, such as a single county library card, might be at hand. The legislation did not include the formation of regional co-operatives in southern counties—this particular legal amendment would not occur until 1963.

On balance, the Wallace report (combined with Angus Mowat’s subsequent proposals) was a modest success. Its importance lay not in its actual recommendations but its stimulus for the Department of Education to enact new legislation and bolster the small PLS in Toronto. Indeed, the report’s legacy was short. The concept of travelling libraries and an Open Shelf service would soon become outdated in the 1960s and eventually abandoned after a disastrous fire destroyed half of the book stock at the PLS headquarters in 1963.  As well, the National Library in Ottawa would supplant any idea of forming a Provincial Library in Toronto. The issue of regional systems mainly supported by provincial grants would eventually be enacted in 1966. The study by Dr. Wallace was a progressive step forward but a small one.

The Wallace Report has been digitized and is available on the Internet Archive.

The Ontario Public Library: Review and Reorganization by Albert Bowron (1975)

The Ontario Public Library: Review and Reorganization. Prepared for the Ontario Provincial Library Council by Albert W. Bowron. Toronto: Information, Media and Library Planners, December 1975; p. 184; maps; tables; paper.

In June 1974, the Ministry of Ministry of Colleges and Universities approved a provincial research study on Ontario’s public libraries. Albert Bowron, a prominent library consultant, was hired to complete a general investigation. He was well qualified for the task, having worked in Ontario libraries for more than a quarter-century. Bowron had graduated from the University of Toronto Library School in 1949, worked at Toronto Public Library, and headed the Scarborough Public Library in the 1960s before establishing his consultancy in 1969. He was well known across the province, for he had served as president of the Ontario Library Association in 1966-67. By the mid-1970s he had issued reports on more than a dozen library systems in Ontario, large and small.

The proposed provincial survey was very broad. It was to encompass societal features relevant to the future development of libraries; to assess the quality and variety of library services; to evaluate legislation and financial support; and to analyze government programs pertaining to library development. Crucially, the library community as well as the Ontario government, wanted to receive advice and recommendations regarding the organization, financing, and coordination of public libraries that would outline a plan for development for the next decade. The current act, adopted in 1966, had emphasized regional development, but new developments such as automation, networking, and services to minorities were coming to the fore and often outstripped the resources of municipal and regional library services.

However, before Bowron began his major study, two major factors occurred: one at the provincial level, the other in Metropolitan Toronto. First, at the end of 1974, a new Ministry of Culture and Recreation (MCR) was established. The idea of placing libraries in a “Ministry of Culture” had been floated for some time, and the news that the Provincial Library Service Branch (PLS) would become a unit within the MCR in early 1975 came without much consultation, even though the library component consumed about twenty percent of the new Ministry’s total budget. For the PLS, this move was the last in a series of shuffles that situated it in three different ministries in four years. This reorganization occurred when the staff of the PLS had dwindled from thirteen in 1965 to eight in 1975. For Bowron, there were many unknowns because the new MCR would be developing its own program priorities. Second, in September 1974, the former Premier of Ontario, John Robarts, became chair of a Royal Commission on Metropolitan Toronto to review responsibilities in the two-tier structure encompassing the six boroughs and city. As a result, Metro libraries became less interested in Bowrons study because the Royal Commission took precedence. Regarding consensus, the Metro library and lower-tier boards had not agreed upon a metropolitan strategy. North York had consistently advocated that the Metro board support the technical services, research, and coordinated needs of borough and city libraries. In the city itself, the construction of the Metro Central Library, scheduled to open in 1977, had always been a major objective to provide resources and information. The new Commission effectively meant Bowron’s observations on Metro libraries would not have much impact.

At the same time, divisions were becoming more apparent in the library community. The Administrators of Large Urban Centre Public Libraries in Ontario immediately came together in April 1975 to present the MCR with a brief that indicated the proposed study did not sufficiently address important library issues, such as financial support for urban libraries that bore the burden of resource networking. A year later, in May 1976, another grouping of public libraries, Administrators of Medium-Size Public Libraries, formed to speak for its constituency.

It was against this backdrop that the Bowron study began in 1975. There were some positives. The MCR was offering library base funding in 1975 at $19 million. In addition, it would make $400,000 available to regional libraries for Canadiana. Money for Outreach Ontario programs in libraries would continue in the MCR, and a new program with $234,000 would be available for summer student employment. Many were relieved to hear that the MCR supported direct provincial conditional grants to public libraries rather than transfers to municipal councils which might reduce the amount distributed to libraries by the MCR. In October 1975, the Ontario Commission on the Legislature issued a report on government information service; it proposed that the government consider establishing a network linking libraries by telephone and telex to furnish public information and referral service. Its purpose would be to give every Ontario citizen a source to call for information on anything to do with all levels of government.

After a year, Albert Bowron produced a general investigative report with forty-three recommendations covering ten key areas. His report also covered general societal changes, an examination of Canadiana resources in libraries, and a review of Metro libraries; however, these chapters were mostly ignored in the debates that followed the submission of the what became known in early 1976 as the “Bowron Report.” Reviewers quickly noted that data used in the report often was not reflected in recommendations. For example, the composition of boards. In an analysis of 1,296 board members, Bowron found 19.2 % were housewives, 18.2% involved in education, 16.1% to be business persons, 12.6% were retired, 4.1% were farmers, 4% from skilled labour, and 25.8% “other.” Middle-income members prevailed: “The typical board member in Ontario in 1974 was a man, 30 to 50 years old, with a university or college education, who worked in the field of education.” (p. 80-82). Still, this observation did not lead to a clear-cut recommendation.

From the vantage point of almost half a century (2023) the Bowron Report is mostly forgotten: the fate of many reports. The library landscape he surveyed is mostly a matter of history. Of course, public libraries have been continually reshuffled in reformed ministries since the 1970s. Provincial library grants to boards have not kept pace with inflation, especially after the mid-1990s. Yet his report warrants re-examination because it did emphasize change and pointed to new directions that are firmly in place in the 21st century. Bowron stated libraries needed to adjust to changing societal trends and augment the traditional image as a place to borrow a “good book to read.” There needed to be concerted focus on cooperative work, technology, work with the disadvantaged and minorities, and service to students (p. 4-6). The image of libraries was an important element in transforming the its status with the citizens of Ontario.

Thus, a synopsis of all Bowron’s work, The Ontario Public Library, which is difficult to find in a library today, follows on a chapter-by-chapter basis.

3-1 MCR and a new Ontario Public Library Board (OPLB) and native organizations sponsor a study of their services and propose recommendations for future development. 
4-1 The MCR and local libraries work to develop better community services.
4-2 Regional system establish contact with MCR field officers and offer co-operative activities of mutual interest.
4-3 Standards for CICs be framed to permit local libraries to offer this service with supporting provincial grants.
4-4 The Minister of the MCR seek advice on the certification and recognition of librarians.
5-1 The PLS would be responsible for community information centers (CICs), thus becoming a Public Library and Community Information Services branch (PLCIS).
5-2 The branch would supervise library legislation and CICs; conduct research; support the proposed Ontario Library Board; and liaise with ministry officials. Additional staff for electronic data processing, networking, and CICs, was urged along with service to Franco-Ontarians.
6-1 The report advised the Minister to appoint an Ontario Public Library Board to replace the OPLC.
6-2 The Minister of MCR appoint all OPLB members.
6-3 OPLB members to usually serve four-year terms and be reappointed once.
6-4 The Director of the PLCIS would be sec.-treas. of the OPLB with appropriate staffing. The Board would establish minimum standards, coordinate research, study financing, and establish province-wide policies for public library and information service.
7-1 All library boards be composed of nine members appointed by the municipal council.
7-2 Union boards be comprised of nine members appointed by each council.
7-3 Five citizen board members be appointed for three years and frequent reappointments eliminated.
7-4 Bowron recommended that a board serving less than 15,000 receive a two-year provincial grant but must exceed its provincial grant with local revenue thereafter or contract for services or join a county system.
7-5 Independent boards under 15,000 population must provide twice the provincial grant financing after two years of operation.
7-6 Payment to board members should be allowed, and all boards should be composed of nine members appointed by municipal councils to ensure accountability. Appointing bodies should exercise care to make boards more representative of their communities.
8-1 New regional systems and OPLB adopt better program budgeting.
8-2 Funding separate from regular grants be spent on projects with possible long-term growth instead of supplementing ongoing expenditures on materials or equipment.
8-3 The provincial government continue to support regional systems and develop a province-wide network of libraries.
8-4 Provincial grants be transferred directly to local boards and be sufficient to allow for long-range planning of library service.
9-1 Bowron urged greater efforts by the MCR and other ministries to form county libraries.
9-2 The appointment of members to county boards by county councils, including lay members, after three years.
9-3 Library service in newly restructured regions should become the responsibility of the upper tier.
9-4 Service levels in local communities in new county libraries be supported at the same levels or better for three years.
9-5 Special funding for initial county development was necessary for three years.
9-6 The repeal of Part IV, Clause 52, Sections 1-3 [the process to form a county library established in 1966].
9-7 Provincial support for the legacy Simcoe County Library Co-operative be withdrawn.
9-8 The PLCIS encourage the formation of county systems.
10-1 The OPLB and PLCIS monitor electronic data processing to ensure a coordinated approach to automation.
10-2 Provincial support for cataloguing, inter-library lending, circulation control and acquisitions using automation be studied by working groups in concert with the University of Toronto Library Automated Systems development.
10-3 The OPLB sponsor a workshop to develop a unified approach to automation.
12-1 Franco-Ontario staff member be added to the PL and Community Services Branch to serve French-speaking citizens better.
12-2 Libraries established in significant French-speaking areas employed Francophone staff
12-3 An annual grant for Francophone library service be transferred by MCR to libraries where more than ten percent of the population is French-speaking.
12-4 Two members of OPLC be Franco-Ontarians, and Francophone membership on library boards be instituted where feasible.
12-5 A provincial study be undertaken to identify Franco-Ontarians’ needs.
13-1 There be an integrated public library system in all thirteen newly restructured municipal governments (Metro excepted).
13-2 The reduction of fourteen regional library systems to seven federated ones based on the new MCR’s regional offices.
13-3 There be one resource library in each federated system financed by the province.
13-4 Each resource library to be funded on a per capita basis as determined annually by the OPLB.
13-5 The OPLB establish meaningful qualitative and qualitative standards to act as minimum levels of service to be attained by public libraries.
13-6 The OPLB standards adopted by the MCR would be incorporated into legislation on which grant qualification would depend.

A variety of responses to the report surfaced extending into 1977. One weakness soon became apparent: a noticeable lack of public input into the actual report-gathering process. Fewer than forty briefs and letters were submitted during the survey, mainly from libraries, regional systems, or educational groups like the Ontario Library Association. Two major groups with conflicting views caught the attention of the provincial government. Some issues, especially unconditional grants, drew attention outside library circles. A new municipal group formed in 1972, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO), weighed in with its preference to deconditionalize grants. The Association believed that municipalities should have the right to appoint all board members and have the option to dissolve a board and to make it a committee of council. Further, the AMO rejected most of Bowron’s recommendations on county libraries. The AMO would remain vigilant on library questions by issuing reports countering ideas that library groups proposed. Another group, the OLA, also concentrated on funding, primarily increased provincial conditional aid for assessment-poor municipalities as well as capital grants for construction. Yet, the final report had little recognition of OLA’s specific funding suggestions. The MCR was prepared to receive post-report submissions, but the onus was on the OLA and library agencies to assess responses.

Generally, the library community was indecisive and reacted negatively to Bowron’s recommendations. It was felt that the report lacked clear direction, employed a somewhat faulty methodology, covered too broad a spectrum, and was seriously underfunded. Vociferous critics denounced the restructuring of regions, criticized the lack of reference to capital funding, and decried Bowron’s criticism of county library developments before 1974. Bowron had intended to “reduce the number, the types of library authorities, the ways in which members are appointed, to change the term of appointment and other regulations” (p. 69). He pointed out that in 1975, 308 boards were serving less than 10,000 people, a Depression-era number despite thirty years’ counsel about the wisdom of larger units. How would boards react to a change in the method of appointment that might lessen their independence?

The surveyor had made judgements that were difficult to construct a consensus about, i.e., the federated library systems. Meetings within regions often produced conflicting ideas related to coordinated services or the value of centralized processing. In northern Ontario, the achievement of basic service needed proper funding to overcome distances and income disparities, not further study as Bowron advocated. The lack of rationale for the seven federated regions and the complexities of board composition for the new regional entities puzzled observers who had spent most of a decade fostering closer relationships in the existing regional environment. Many trustees felt Bowron’s report did not sufficiently strengthen the PLS. Trustees and librarians were content with encouraging, not legislating, larger units of service.

Bowron’s analysis of pro-forma (non-operating) boards upset many library trustees who relied solely on provincial conditional grants. He had noted their formation in eastern Ontario, the Georgian Bay area, and along Lake Ontario had effectively stalled the creation of union or county boards. Another deficiency raised in the Bowron review was the interconnection with federal libraries and organizations outside the MCR. Public libraries across Canada sought new services supported by the National Library and the new $15 million national science library erected in 1974, the Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. A recurring question during the review process was whether the provincial government would fund recommendations to make services more effective. Planning systems development and networking, automation projects, equitable funding, and revising provincial grants was not inexpensive.

An autumn 1976 session at the OLA’s Toronto annual meeting, “Bowron and Beyond,” agreed that a strengthened provincial library board and the MCR’s lead in networking development was necessary. Some issues, such as the need for standards or guidelines, were not contentious. There was also wide-based agreement on some points, e.g., networking and infrastructure need. But support was tepid: there were too many divisions of opinion and reliance on the status quo to fashion new legislation or fund large projects. Like many government efforts, the Bowron study was consigned to office shelves as current activities and events continued to unfold that diverted interest or steered energies in new directions.

Building consensus and unity was essential because the MCR was a new entity with different policies. The sixties and early seventies had been a search for general public library purpose, structure, and role definition: circulation had surpassed fifty million and almost eight million people were reached. Bowron had emphasized change, but it would be another decade (1984-85) before public library legislation would be entirely revised and a handful of his recommendations, such as the composition and method of trustee appointments, larger regional operations, service to indigenous libraries, strengthened Francophone service, improvements for minorities, and provincial funding for automation, was adopted. In his pursuit for change Bowron was partially successful and, in the long run, the public library benefited the most from his work and ideas.

There is an informative review by E. Stanley Beacock, “The Ontario Public Library: Review and Reorganization,” Library Quarterly 46-4 (Oct. 1976): 452–454

Terrence B. Verity, ed. Libraries at the Crossroads: Proceedings of a Workshop on the Report The Ontario Public Library, Review and Reorganization. Toronto: Ontario Library Association, 1976.

Bowron’s work is the subject of a review in the March 1976 issue of the Ontario Library Review 60, no. 1: 5-10 with a correction in the June issue p. 116.

A subsequent provincial study by Peter Bassnett, issued in 1982, is the subject of a previous blog. He studied many of the same issues which led to a new library act proclaimed in 1985 that remains the basis for current public libraries in Ontario.

Ontario Public Libraries: The Provincial Role in a Triad of Responsibilities, 1982

Ontario Public Libraries: The Provincial Role in a Triad of Responsibilities. The Report of the Ontario Public Libraries Programme Review for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. Toronto: Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, 1982. Executive Co-Ordinator, Peter J. Bassnett. Tables and appendices; xxxiii, 318 pp.

In September 1980, Ontario’s Minister of Culture and Recreation (MCR), Reuben Baetz, met with the Ontario Public Library Council (OPLC) to announce a two-year Public Libraries Programme Review (OPLPR). Scarborough’s chief librarian, Peter Bassnett, would be the director and work with a small intermediary group at the outset to plan the review process. Since 1975 he had been chief librarian at Scarborough. Before this appointment, he had managed systems at North York and worked in the UK for many years. The Minister believed a positive approach with abundant consultation would improve the delivery of library services throughout Ontario. The 1970s had been a time of controversy about the role of regional library services, the accountability of library boards, disputes with municipal authorities, the funding provided for libraries by the provincial government, and dissenting viewpoints about policies for future planning. A previous report on provincial libraries by Albert Bowron in 1975 had produced much discussion but no significant legislative changes. Revised public library legislation was the major objective because the older statute, enacted in 1966, had not proved to be as effective as originally expected.

The OPLPR established fifteen groups in search of consensus and solutions for many contentious issues. Some groups explored general provincial concerns: policy and social purpose (1), general delivery of services (2), governmental liaison (3), provincial financing and accountability (4), and field services (5). Task groups on planning and development for technological potential (6), electronic information (13), and co-operatives and processing centres (15) addressed technical and networking questions. Special considerations for northern Ontario (7), publishing and libraries (12), and access to resources (14) required separate groups. Finally, four groups studied cultural identities and services for French languages (8), Native services (9), multicultural programs (10), and disabled persons (11). Each group was responsible for a report to Peter Bassnett, who was charged with publishing a final report. In addition, Bassnett held 20 open sessions for discussion and received 368 briefs encompassing a wide variety of issues.

The OPLPR sets its course for a year-and-a-half with the knowledge that the Progressive Conservatives under William Davis had finally secured a majority government in a March 1981 election. Four years would be sufficient to develop new legislation for libraries. The OPLPR submitted seventy-five recommendations by August 1982. By then, there was a new Minister, Bruce McCaffrey, in charge, and, earlier in the year, in February 1982, the MCR had become the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, with its Library and Community (MCZC) Information Branch relocated in the Arts, Heritage and Libraries division.

The OPLPR report, Ontario Public Libraries: The Provincial Role in a Triad of Responsibilities, was issued, mostly in microfiche to the consternation of many, by autumn 1982 for review by library boards, politicians, and librarians. The Bassnett report made clear-cut statements that cut across the entire spectrum of public library services. It found that the current provincial role performed by the LCIB or OPLC was deficient (p. 68–71). The Report indicated more specific legislation and guidelines were required (p. 93). Lack of awareness about the LCIB and OPLC and their inadequate authority had stalled communication and led to ineffectual provincial leadership. A strengthening of provincial direction within the Ministry through an enlarged staff component to plan and liaise with the library community was essential. A Public Library Services Division and a new advisory body would be required (rec. 7.72 and 7.73). Other recommendations for increased staff for data collection, French-language service, networking, services for disabled persons, aboriginal services, multicultural activity, management, and training responsibilities (p. 168–187) would permit the MCZC to deal with policies that it brought forward. Some ideas originated from background studies or were influenced by general developments such as the 1981 United Nations International Year of Disabled Persons theme ‘Full Participation and Equality.’ Assistance for non-professional staff, mostly untrained persons in charge of small libraries, was an important issue, the subject of one lengthy submission from an ad hoc group of consultants. In one case, the Task Force on Native Services, the main thrust urging the formation of a Council to oversee library services for natives at an estimated $290,000, was disregarded because the group insisted on working outside the framework of the LCIB. The OPLPR’s recommendations on northern Ontario conditions mostly bypassed the ideas from Task group 15 headed by Richard Jones, director of North Central region.

During the Programme Review, the regional role—now retitled the intermediary role—was gradually reshaped. A Network Development Office was transferred to the Ministry offices in July 1981 and some LCIB staff worked on a provincial study of union products for resource sharing in regional systems. The OPLPR was wary of multiple regional processing centres and bibliographic databanks. Task force 15 had recommended the Midwestern Region centre become a Crown Corporation. Instead, the OPLPR (p. 164–167) followed the Ministry’s internal report that recommended further study of Midwestern’s possibilities. A new path was clarified: automation and cooperative area networks were to become local level responsibilities supplemented with planning and financial assistance offered by the Province. Centralized regional acquisitions and processing utilities would no longer receive support. The Programme Review recommended intermediary involvement with basic services, such as rotating book collections, staff training, special collections, reference centres, programming for groups, and direct service to municipally unorganized populations. Some briefs authored by administrative groups emphasized long-standing issues such as resource libraries and centralized processing, but these positions were not conclusive. The key point was the Review’s statement that the intermediary role “is an extension of the Provincial Government’s responsibility and role in the delivery of public library services across Ontario” and that there were currently three types of regional service, “the northern, southern, and Metropolitan Toronto area” (p. 147–148). Northern distinctions warranted more proactive provincial library intermediaries. The southern systems were more complex, so the Review recommended a gradual phase-in over five years to one provincial agency with field offices, starting with Southwestern, Lake Erie, and Niagara (p.154–159). Metro Toronto required amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act to repeal the Metro Library Board’s status as a regional library system and to authorize more sitting Metro Council members for the upper-level board. Provincial funding for the Metro Board would need an examination to determine what special purposes the province wanted to accomplish with its legislative payments (p. 160–164).

At the local level, the OPLPR made forty-two recommendations clarifying functions and management. Several recommendations would eventually make their way into the revised Library Act almost three years later in 1985. In place of standards, boards should embark on community analysis; boards should provide services their communities desired or needed; legislation for free entry to libraries and use of materials should be enacted; and services for particular groups (e.g., the disabled and Francophones) should be augmented with provincial assistance. Capital funds should be made available because only a few libraries had shared in the brief Wintario capital construction program in the late 1970s before the government redirected it to other purposes. Funding from programs such as Wintario and the Board of Industrial Leadership was important but episodic. Special funding for the creation of county-regional municipal systems and enrichment of per capita grants to northern libraries was a desideratum. Some recommendations addressed the composition of boards and their relationship with appointing bodies by affording municipal councils more control. The century-old traditional board of nine members, with the majority composed of public and separate school appointees from larger county school boards, was a leftover from the 1960s restructuring of school authorities. Now, municipal councils should make all the appointments (p. 116). In summarizing the provincial conditional grant to libraries, the Review found little change over ten years: the 1971 grant had totalled $8,552 million (20% of total support), and in 1981, $25,279 million (19% of total support). The Bassnett report recommended continuing payment of annual grants directly to boards. On the issue of non-operating boards, currently in 136 communities, the Report recommended the grant be paid only if municipal revenue matched its grant (p. 132–135). This policy, along with the promotion of larger units of service in counties and upper-tier municipalities, had the potential to halve the total number of boards.

The Bassnett report concluded by drafting a policy statement regarding public library service (p. 188–192). Ultimately, provincial goals should be:
▪ provision of public library legislation ensuring deww access and delivery of services;
▪ encouragement and support for municipal libraries;
▪ ensuring library collections reflect the population characteristics of their jurisdictions;
▪ encouragement and assistance for technological changes;
▪ development of a province-wide public information utility by networking municipal libraries; and
▪ provision of funding and staff support to achieve these goals.

The cost of expanding provincial support was not expensive: Task Group 4 estimated a 10.5% increase from $25.7 million to $28.5 million (p. 194). At the former regional levels, expenses could be reduced by 40 percent and be redirected to augment the proposed public library service division. In terms of the Public Libraries Act, the OPLPR recommended a complete overhaul. In response to the OPLPR, Bruce McCaffrey announced at the November 1982 Ontario Library Association conference in Toronto that his Ministry preferred to issue a ‘green paper’ for more discussion without any specific commitment to action, A Foundation for the Future/Réalitiés et Perspectives. This ‘green paper,’ released in December 1982, would form the basis for legislative changes. In February 1983, Wil Vanderelst, from the MCZC policy secretariat, became the new director of the LCIB, now shifted to the Ministry’s Culture and Regional Services Division. While the Ontario Public Libraries report had sought consensus on many issues, in fact, its author, Peter Bassnett, expressed dissatisfaction with the ‘green paper’ in the Toronto Star in May 1983. He felt many of his recommendations had been passed over or modified. Such was the fate of many recommendations in the OPLPR: finding consensus in the library community was an uncommonly difficult task.

There were, however, positive outcomes of the OPLPR. Municipal councils gained more control over library board appointments, thus ending a decade-long struggle. Free access to a variety materials became an important feature of new legislation enacted in 1985. The Province reiterated its support for conditional grants paid directly to library boards. The conflict and confusion about regional library boards was reduced when the province took control of southern and northern ‘intermediary’ services and began to deliver targeted policies, such as Francophone concerns, disabled programs, and improved service to indigenous communities. The review, which appeared at the same time when ‘turnkey systems’ were beginning to provide integrated solutions for library functions, proposed extensive automation projects be supported by provincial studies (p. 166). The idea of equalization of services addressed on large geographic scale came firmly into play. In fact, after almost four decades, very few changes have been made to the original 1984–85 legislation; again, one of the accomplishments that may be traced to the Bassnett report.

ONTARIO'S CENTENNIAL LIBRARIES, 1966—1967

     In 1961 the National Centennial Act established a federal Centennial Commission reporting to Parliament. This Commission intended to celebrate Canada’s birthday by planning and assisting projects across the country. Provincial departments helped coordinate finances with local groups and municipalities. In all, the total expenditure under various grant programs for all governments reached $200 million for about 2,500 projects, including the building of Confederation Memorial Centres, such as the one in Charlottetown which included a library. In Ontario, in 1965, the Department of Tourism established a Centennial Planning Branch to help plan and finance celebrations such as armed forces ceremonials, canoe pageants, the Confederation and train caravans, aboriginal events, sports events, municipal projects, and Queen’s Park celebrations. Approved local projects received funding from the federal government normally based on one dollar per capita to a maximum of one-third of the total cost. Provinces usually matched the federal amount, and municipalities funded the balance. Some new regional library co-operatives also provided funds for a few projects, notably Teck Township, where library facilities were the primary focus. Eventually, Ontario municipal projects totalled approximately $7 million; more than seventy-five libraries qualified for funding in the building category.–

     About five percent of the total Canadian projects were library-related (144). Ontario communities accounted for slightly more than half of all Canadian library buildings. The most notable project, the Public Archives and National Library, which opened on 20 June 1967, fulfilled a need expressed since the beginning of the century. The Canadian Library Association received $12,000 to microfilm Canadian newspapers in the Confederation period, 1862–1873; these microfilms were subsequently used across the country in many research projects. In Ontario, few major cities choose to erect or renovate libraries because large buildings were more complex to plan and finance during the Commission’s short lifespan. In Canada, Edmonton’s towering $4,000,000 centennial central library was a remarkable example of municipal funding for library services.

Sault Ste. Marie Centennial Library, 1967

      In Ontario, only Sault Ste. Marie ($776,000), Chatham ($515,000), and Mimico ($300,000) were expensively conceived projects. The Sault Ste. Marie library’s lower level included space for a “Centennial Room” for lectures and exhibits. The vast majority of libraries were projected to be under $100,000 due to the per capita funding formula. Smaller municipalities sometimes entered into joint projects with their neighbours to combine their financial resources. One municipality, suburban Toronto Township, built three smaller libraries (3,000 sq. ft. each) that opened on the same day in October 1967—Malton, Lakeview, and Clarkson-Lorne Park.

Mimico Centennial Library, 1966

      The Centennial Commission was not concerned with library architectural features or functional requirements of libraries. By now, the excesses of the Carnegie era were well known: some communities—Cornwall (1956), Sarnia (1960), and Guelph (1964)—had simply demolished their buildings and rebuilt without regard to heritage considerations. Chatham, opened on 15 November 1967, followed the same process, moving to the Thames Theatre Art Gallery while demolition of the Carnegie proceeded. Sault Ste. Marie also razed its Carnegie building to make way for Sixties-style progress. 

   In keeping with the limited funds available on a per capita basis, the general architectural style of the vast majority of smaller Centennial libraries might be described as “commercial-vernacular” with the following usual characteristics:

▪ most new buildings were 4,000 – 8,000 sq. ft. in size and based on a simple rectangular or box plan, sometimes allowing for future expansion;
▪ modernist style exteriors were rectilinear in form with plain surfaces, featuring extensive use of glass, and horizontal roof lines;
▪ buildings had approachable “street-level” entrances often with adjoining parking;
▪ interior “open plan” mix of stacking, fluorescent lightening, and public space provided more convenient, individual study areas, larger lounge areas for reading, and improved interface with staff and book collections;
▪ structural elements featured concrete, glass, and steel that revealed skeleton-frame structure;
▪ lighting took on more importance with visible fluorescent and long, metal window mullions providing strength in single-storey buildings and allowing more interior daylight to make study and programming pleasant for users;
▪ in larger libraries, modular column squares made load-bearing and functionality simpler to plan for future redesign needs;
▪ use of vernacular, localized style combined with contemporary wood-steel furnishings created attractive, simplified library spaces.
The majority of Centennial libraries and extensions did not continue the monumental traditional style of the Carnegie era. Instead, the ideal, “form follows function,” was adhered to even if contemporary additions clashed dramatically with the older Carnegie style, as in Fort Frances. Many additions simply alleviated space problems, thereby limiting their scope and style. Renovated buildings, such as a service station at Sioux Lookout, did not present opportunities for architectural statements.

Streetsville Centennial Library, 1967

    The architectural qualities of Centennial libraries differed tremendously. Because of their size and community location Centennial libraries escaped the major elements of the Brutalist style, so evident in Ontario’s 1969 Centennial Museum of Science and Technology. One library, Mimico, opened in November 1966, received a Massey Medal for Architecture for its architect, Philip R. Brook. It was a spacious 18,000 sq. ft. building with a capacity of 60,000 books and an auditorium for 250 people. Streetsville, opened in November 1967 by the Premier, William Davis, reflected a contemporary cubic style with a capacity for 20,000 volumes  within 6,500 sq. ft. Larger libraries, such as Oakville, formed part of a civic complex and combined with art gallery space to satisfy municipal needs. The complex was on three levels: a lower area for technical services, main floor children’s library, and upper level (actually at street level) included adult services and the art gallery.

Nepean Centennial Library, 1967

      Some structures were built with an eye for successful extensions, such as Fort Erie. Others, such as Nepean Township’s modular octagon at Bells Corners, were too small at just under 2,000 sq. ft. to cope with population growth. Nepean was required to add later modular additions in 1970 and 1974. A few county library systems built better accommodations. The Middlesex library included a local branch for Arva residents as well as storage and garage to organize transport of books to other county branches via bookmobile—there was14,000 sq. ft. on one level. Several, notably Cornwall’s Centennial Simon Fraser wing, opened by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in July 1967, were successful additions to existing buildings.

     Very little critical study of Centennial library building projects exists, Bracebridge being a noteworthy exception. Its 1908 Carnegie, of course, suffered space constraints before the trustees and town council decided to renovate the basement for a children’s library and add a small extension for a separate entrance. The project cost was just less than $20,000; it included renovation upgrades in the main building and a “centennial wing” which was really “just a concrete-block bunker” that blemished the heritage aspects of the original Carnegie design. Nonetheless, speeches at an official ceremony on 13 May 1967 deemed the town’s decision to be a wise investment in children’s education.

     Indeed, the Centennial helped enhance the library’s public image about an expanded range of services, for example, auditoriums for programs, meetings, and performances; exhibit areas for art; and accommodation for audio-visual departments. These advantages reinforced the library’s position as an educational and recreational locus for community activity. Improved library facilities were part of a rapid increase in library usage across Ontario: in 1961 libraries served approx. 4.4 million and by 1971 6.9 million, a 56% increase — the greatest single decade increase in Ontario library history. Across the province, Centennial libraries were a visible symbol of local pride, the growth of Canadian identity, the democratization of culture, and the utility of shared federal-provincial programs for the public benefit. In some ways, Centennial libraries emulated the local self-help philosophy and enthusiasm for library building inspired by Andrew Carnegie six decades previously without the need to venture beyond national boundaries for funding.

 

ONTARIO'S LANDMARK PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT, 1920

A century ago, in June 1920, the Farmer-Labour government in Ontario introduced a new public libraries act, mostly through the work of the Education Department's provincial library Inspector, William O. Carson. He had been London's chief librarian for a decade before moving to Toronto in 1916 to undertake the task of vitalizing Ontario's libraries during the difficult years of the First World War. The contemporary act he inherited dated back as far as 1882, with major revisions issued in 1895 and 1909. But, with the appearance of Carnegie buildings (125 in Ontario), better training for library assistants and librarians, and far different economic conditions facing municipalities after four decades of population growth, the provisions of the older act (which had at one time included mechanics' institutes) no longer suited a province that had suffered rural depopulation and was becoming increasingly urbanized after the 1911 census.

Carson spent his first few years in the small library office of the Education Department at Queen's Park studying the province's public libraries, the free ones with mandatory library tax rates and the association-membership ones that depended on fundraising for their operations. By early 1920, an entirely new act with revisions to older sections was ready to be introduced into the legislative process for three readings. The new law came into effect on June 4th, 1920, after a relatively easy passage through the Ontario legislature. No less than George Locke, Toronto's energetic chief librarian, pronounced that the new act was the greatest step forward in public library development on the continent. Mary J.L. Black was also enthusiastic, writing that the act "may well be considered as the most progressive and practical Library Act that has ever appeared in any statue book, the world over."

The new act was indeed praiseworthy, but not perfect; it served Ontario's public library community well until it was replaced by an entirely new act in 1966. The prominent feature of the new act was its provision for local financing of free public libraries. Previously, library boards had relied on a mandatory minimum municipal levy of one half-mill on the assessed valuation of property (real or personal) in their communities.  Of course, municipalities varied in population, local assessments differed as did tax rates, and many local councils considered the half-mill to be a maximum rather than a minimum. Consequently, Carson introduced a mandatory annual minimum fifty cents per capita levy for municipalities, police villages, and school sections where free libraries existed. The rationale: libraries served people, not property! Municipal councils were also authorized to increase the "public library rate" by majority votes (a seldom used clause as it turned out).

The new act adhered to the concept of enabling municipal based library service. Following the successful vote of eligible electors, a board could be established; these boards, usually composed of nine members in cities, were governed by appointed members and the appointing powers were divided among school and municipal authorities to ensure the semi-independence of each board. For rural library development, the province continued the long-standing tradition, dating back to 1851, of allowing the formation of association (membership) libraries that elected boards of five to ten members from its membership each year. Association libraries were not eligible for the minimum fifty cents per capita rate and had to subsist on members' fees and fundraising events for their operations. Often, Carson's departmental travelling library sections supplied associations with small boxes of books as supplemental reading for their membership.

For its role in library development, Ontario, through its Department of Education, the act authorized provisions for the minister (an office usually held by the sitting Premier) to pay grants to public libraries to a typical maximum of $250.  These provisions encouraged local growth on a "self-help" basis:

1) city branches became eligible for grants on the same basis as main libraries, a stipulation that Toronto enthusiastically endorsed;

2) legislative regulations provided for a grant of fifty percent on book purchases up to $400 and fifty percent on periodicals and newspapers not to exceed $100;

3) a grant of $10 for a reading room open a certain number of hours a week;

4) a few special grants were set aside for small libraries and reading room service.

Carson was also able to convince the government to empower the minister of education to encourage additional services in the interest of public libraries, notably authority to maintain a library school and library institutes. Carson had lengthened the time for library education and training using the Toronto Public Library as a practice facility. Library institutes were shorter workshop sessions aimed at improving the trustees' knowledge about modern library development. The minister also was given the right to pass regulations governing the qualifications of librarians and assistants. Carson, and other leading Ontario librarians, such as George Locke and Mary J.L. Black, considered the librarian and staff to be essential to the success of library service.

For many years, Ontario's library law was cited as a model for other provincial jurisdictions. The 1933 Carnegie sponsored report, Libraries in Canada, noted it was the most complete library act in Canada and could be used as a guide. However, Ontario's act had not adequately dealt with the problem of the small rural library. Union boards could be formed, but this section of the act was seldom used. The commissioners who reported in 1933 singled out Ontario's problem and pointed to the essential provisions of a "good" library act:

1) a statement of purpose for the public library;

2) a central supervising and "energizing" agency;

3) a representative and responsible local management;

4) a sure and adequate income.

Further, the three Carnegie commissioners suggested a statutory Library Commission (like the existing one in British Columbia) would strengthen the hand of the Department's library inspectorate. County and regional library amendments were also necessary to ensure cooperative efforts in rural areas. A Commission, of course, had been rejected by Ontario's government as far back as 1902. County library cooperative legislation was introduced in 1947, regional co-operative could be formed after 1957, and, eventually, county libraries were authorized in 1959. These amendments were the most significant changes to the 1920 Act over the course of forty-five years.

When the new Act of 1966 came into effect, it eliminated some prominent vestiges of the past that were features of the 1920 Act: the need for local plebiscites to establish libraries, the requirement to be a British subject, the voluntary Library Association form of governance, and the minimum per capita library rate of 1920. From the perspective of a century, the 1920 Act, although hailed at the time as a modern advancement, fell short in vital areas. From the very first, a Michigan librarian familiar with Canadian and American conditions, Samuel Ranke, estimated that $1.00 per capita would be more a more suitable rate. The new act lacked provisions to permit, or encourage, cooperative services between library boards, except for the union board clause. Trustees, for the most part, need not look beyond their community. Library operations in smaller places frequently were in the hands of self-trained local appointments because there was no requirement to hire trained personnel. Boards assumed a "hands-on approach" and made decisions about book selection and finances. Reappointment of trustees, rather than an infusion of new blood, was standard practice.

In many respects, the 1920 Act consolidated previous ideas about how library service should develop within Ontario's municipal structure, which dated to 1849. But future progress in Ontario would depend on ideas and attitudes quite unlike the ones which characterized the successes of the public library movement from 1880-1920. By 1950, it was evident changes would be necessary and new library amendments began to appear with regularity. Indeed, Ontario's municipal framework began to undergo similar reviews to accommodate changing demographics and social issues.

The full text of the act is available on the Internet Archive.