Ontario’s parliamentarians—like many of their counterparts across Canada and internationally—have long relied on dedicated in-house research services. With a focus on meeting the needs of elected members and legislative committees, parliamentary research is typically provided by experts on a confidential, non-partisan basis. Whether proposing or scrutinizing legislation, preparing for House or committee duties, writing reports, or responding to constituents, Members often look to their parliamentary research offices for the information and analysis they need.

The Congressional Research Service in Washington, DC (established in 1914) and the research office of the UK House of Commons Library (established in 1945) are perhaps the oldest such services, while Canada’s Library of Parliament established its research service in 1965.1 A relative latecomer to the scene, Ontario’s Legislative Research office was launched in 1979.2

The history of the Legislative Research office is inextricable from that of the Legislative Library from which it emerged. For many decades, Ontario’s Legislative Library provided reference and research support not only for elected Members and the rest of the Legislature but also for government departments, the press gallery, universities, and the public.3 Nearly every MPP visited the library regularly to consult its impressive collection of 225 newspapers from “every constituency in Ontario” as well as from across Canada and overseas.4 By the 1970s, the Library’s services were in heavy demand, with librarians responding to over 11,000 requests annually.5

At the time, there was a growing awareness that the Library, and the Legislature as a whole, needed to modernize. And there was also concern that the Province’s parliamentarians—particularly backbenchers—could use more support of all kinds to help them fulfil their responsibilities to constituents as well as in lawmaking and oversight of government.

“The simpler days when representing provincial electors was a part-time occupation have largely passed,” Parliamentary Librarian of Canada Erik Spicer observed at the time. “As the services of Government to society have multiplied and become more complex the demands on legislators have increased and intensified.”6 This meant, he explained, that “accurate, pertinent and timely information is essential to an active and effective legislature.”7

In the House, MPP Elie Martel put it plainly:

If we want a Legislature that makes sense, we have to have informed members. If we are to get away from the petty jockeying, the cheap shots, and get down to doing what we are here to do, and that is to bring in responsible legislation and have responsible criticism of that legislation, or offering of better alternatives. We cannot do it if you don’t have the research.8

The importance of bolstering research support for Ontario’s legislators came up repeatedly during discussions of modernizing and strengthening the Legislature and its operations. In 1960 and 1969, Committees of the House recommended (among other things) the establishment of a specialist research service in the Legislative Library, as did the 1973 Ontario Commission on the Legislature, chaired by Dalton Camp (Camp Commission); the Select Committee on the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Camp Commission, chaired by MPP Donald Morrow (Morrow Committee) in 1975-77; and Parliamentary Librarian of Canada Erik Spicer in his report to the Morrow Committee (Spicer Report).9

In its preliminary assessment of library operations, the Camp Commission found that “as presently constituted, the Legislative Library is really not a legislative library” but “has been… an ‘adjunct’ to a series of ministries over the years.”10 This was not criticism but rather an acknowledgement of the Library’s status under the administration of various government departments for over half a century. In 1921, the Library was run by the Department of Education; in 1964, it was transferred to the Department of the Provincial Secretary before moving to the Ministry of Government Services in 1972.11

“An improved Legislative Library is essential,” the Camp Commission urged, “and as soon as possible.”12 With this goal, the Commission recommended that the Library be moved under the administration of the Legislative Assembly and that it “be oriented toward serving Members in a more aggressive spirit.”13 (In 1976, the Legislative Library became a branch of the Office of the Assembly under the authority of the Speaker.14)

The Camp Commission also recommended (among many other things) that “a research capacity … be added to the Library.”15 Like other parliamentary research offices, Ontario’s service should be non-partisan. Looking ahead, the Commission said:

In the long term, we anticipate a larger research establishment composed of a number of specialists who could pursue subject areas in more depth for Members. …What we are counting on is that the creation of a substantial cadre of people dedicated to analysis, and research of quality… will make a marked contribution to a livelier political institution at the centre of the Province.16

It was widely believed that additional research support was vital to redressing the power imbalance between opposition and government Members. The Camp Commission argued that “it is in the interest of the legislative process and in the general public interest that the research capacity of Opposition Members be improved.”17 As MPP Michael Cassidy explained in the House:

At present, with the research assistance provided, it is impossible for members to effectively scrutinize government expenditures in legislation, defended by a minister with the assistance of his entire ministry. Also, it is becoming ever more important, and correspondingly more difficult, for members to develop expertise in their areas of responsibility or particular interest. …

We’re up against a minister who normally has an executive assistant, a special assistant, the services of a speech writer, perhaps a couple of secretaries and the resources of his department, which can in many cases mean hundreds of high-level policy and research-type people.18

Charged with examining the fourth and fifth reports of the Camp Commission, the Morrow Select Committee “looked at the legislative process as a whole,” chair Donald Morrow explained in the House, “with the goal of improving the efficiency of both the House and the back-bencher.”19

With this aim, the Morrow Committee asked Erik Spicer, Parliamentary Librarian of Canada, to tackle the “urgent” question of preparing the Library for the future.20 After surveying Members, Spicer confirmed that many of them were pleading for more research help. “It’s my very strong feeling you cannot have too much research,” said one.21 A former Member explained:

You have no idea what it’s like to want desperately to get into a debate with solid material and not have the time or resources to prepare it … generally one had to ‘wing it’.22

In Spicer’s view, a major stumbling block for the library was that its “zealous and competent” librarians were stretched thin as they responded to requests not just from the Legislature, but also from the civil service and the public.23 With the number of MPPs set to increase and a concurrent expansion of the size and number of standing and select committees, Spicer believed that it was essential for the library to restrict itself to serving the Legislature and not those he called “parliamentary strangers.”24

Many Members told Spicer they wanted their own researchers, an idea endorsed by the Morrow Committee. At first, Spicer agreed that “in view of the increasing pressure on legislators’ time and their need to give calm thought to complex and often baffling problems, having a competent researcher on staff could greatly increase an MPP’s effectiveness.”25 But Spicer quickly realized that if every MPP had their own researcher, the Library would soon be overwhelmed by an “influx” of researchers making “demands on librarians’ time and resources.”26

In any case, the House rejected the Morrow Committee’s recommendation to supply a researcher for each MPP.27 Spicer responded that since “the need for research is everywhere recognized, it is more urgent than ever that research assistance, available to all MPPs, be added to the Library” in the form of a “small research unit.”28

Like the Camp Commission, the Morrow Committee “believe[d] that corrective measures must be taken to build the Legislative Library into a powerful instrument to effectively serve Ontario’s hard-pressed
legislators.”29 This would require a fundamental reorientation of the Library’s mandate. Namely, librarians “should be the chief legislative source of information and supplying it to the legislators should be the Library’s main activity.”30 The Committee recommended starting with the immediate appointment of a new director of the Library with an expanded mandate encompassing research and information (as also recommended by Erik Spicer).31

After consideration in the House, these proposals were accepted. In 1978, the Library was renamed the Legislative Library, Research and Information Services, under a new executive director. Going forward, the Library’s “primary responsibility” was to “meet the information and reference needs of Members.”32

The Legislative Research Service was established a year later. Based in the Legislative Library, with its own manager (or “chief,” as he was called) under the Library’s executive director, the service soon had five research officers and two support staff, serving members of all three parties then represented in the Legislature and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.33 This service was restricted to Members and committees and was “not available to public servants.”34

At a committee meeting in 1981, a senior research officer described the research service in terms that reflect both the vision of its original architects and its current mandate. The service had “only one allegiance,” she said, “namely to the Legislative Assembly.” It was non-partisan, providing “objective and impartial analyses” that were “available on an equal basis to each and every member of the House” and to standing and select committees. She elaborated:

We do not recommend a course of action. That is, and must always be, the prerogative of the elected member. We do, however, assess the strengths and weaknesses of various arguments and options and make professional judgements based on available evidence, evidence that includes the work of experts in the field, legal precedents or whatever other documentation is required to respond satisfactorily to the request.35

Variously combined and separated over the years, the Legislative Library and Legislative Research are now two distinct offices, with their own directors. Both continue to collaborate closely to provide customized research to MPPs, legislative committees, and other clients at the Legislature.

From the beginning, research demand quickly outstripped supply. As the Camp Commission and others anticipated, the Legislative Research office has expanded and professionalized while keeping a sharp focus on serving legislators. Working under a director and two managers and supported by two administrative staff, a complement of 15 research officers includes lawyers, economists, and political scientists, as well as experts in public administration and finance, public policy, healthcare and social services, environmental issues, education, planning, and history—covering all the major policy areas.

The office adheres to its founding mandate of providing confidential, non-partisan research and analysis to Members, their staff, legislative committees, and Legislative staff. And Members and legislative committees alike now count on Legislative Research for hundreds of memos, reports, and publications comprising thousands of pages of research and analysis each year.

While the Office of the Assembly celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2024, Legislative Research is gearing up for its own 50th in 2029 while exploring and embracing the new research tools and technologies of the future.

Notes

1 Erik J. Spicer, “The Ontario Legislative Library, A Study by the Parliamentary Librarian,” in Donald H. Morrow, Chair, Select Committee on the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature: Final Report, 30th Parliament, January, 1977, Appendix B (Spicer Report), p. 7; Congressional Research Service, “History and Mission,” Library of Congress; UK, “The House of Commons Library,” Factsheet G18, September 2010; Dalton Camp, Chair, Ontario Commission on the Legislature (Camp Commission), “The Legislative Library,” Second Report, December 1973, p. 61; Philip Laundy, Parliamentary Librarianship in the English-Speaking World, London, 1980; June R. Verrier, “How to establish a parliamentary research service: does one size fit all? ” 66th IFLA Council and General Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, August 13-18, 2000.

2 Legislative Library, Research and Information Services, Annual Report of the Director, 1980/81, p. ix.

3 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 56.

4 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 56.

5 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 56.

6 Spicer Report, p. 8.

7 Spicer Report, p. 8.

8 Ontario Legislature, “Consideration of the March 29, 1977, Report of the Select Committee on the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature,” House Hansard, December 1, 1977 – 31st Parliament, 1st Session.

9 Brian Land, “Legislative Reference and Research Services in Canada,” in Rothstein on Reference, with Help from Some Friends, ed. William A. Katz, Charles A. Bunge and Samuel Rothstein (Haworth Press, 1989), pp. 577.

10 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 55.

11 Spicer Report, p. 6.

12 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 64.

13 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 56, p. 61.

14 Legislative Library, Research and Information Services, Annual Report of the Director, 1980/81, p. ix and Board of Internal Economy (BOIE) Minutes, Jan. 13, 1976.

15 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 51.

16 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 63-4.

17 Camp Commission, Second Report, p. 51.

18 Ontario Legislature, “Notice of Motion No. 10” [re: the Second Interim Report of the Select Committee on the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature], House Hansard, December 16, 1976 – 30th Parliament, 3rd Session.

19 Donald H. Morrow, Chair, Select Committee on the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature: Final Report, 30th Parliament, January, 1977; Ontario Legislature, “Notice of Motion No. 10,”, House Hansard, December 16, 976 – 30th Parliament, 3rd Session.

20 Morrow Committee, Final Report, p. 24.

21 Spicer Report, p. 11.

22 Spicer Report, p. 12.

23 Morrow Committee, Final Report, p. 7.

24 Morrow Committee, Final Report, p. 8.

25 Spicer Report, p. 11.

26 Spicer Report, p. 11.

27 Ontario Legislature, “Notice of Motion No. 10” [re: the Second Interim Report of the Select Committee on the Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature], House Hansard, December 16, 1976 – 30th Parliament, 3rd Session. [“47. It is noted that the government does not support, at this time, the recommendations of the select committee concerning research assistants for all members.”]

28 Spicer Report, p. 12. (The House rejected the proposal on December 16, 1976.)

29 Morrow Committee, Final Report, p. 7.

30 Morrow Committee, Final Report, p. 8.

31 Morrow Committee, Final Report, p. 22.

32 Legislative Library, Research and Information Services, Annual Report of the Director 1980/81, p. 1.

33 Brian Land, “Legislative Reference and Research Services in Canada,” pp. 577-78.

34 Brian Land, “Legislative Reference and Research Services in Canada,” p. 578.

35 Ontario Legislature, Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Proceedings, “Library Research,” November 19, 1981.