Ombudsman of Ontario:
strategic plan 2000-02
Mr Clare Lewis
Bilingual Youth
Parliament
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Chair /
Président
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek PC)
Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth ND)
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney Creek PC)
Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton L)
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell L)
Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre / -Centre PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mrs Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier L)
Mr Bob Wood (London West PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Ms Fiona Crean, executive director, Ombudsman of
Ontario
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel
Mr Andrew McNaught, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1601 in committee room
1.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
The Chair (R. Gary
Stewart): Ladies and gentlemen, we'll call the meeting
to order. The first thing on the agenda is the report of the
subcommittee dated Tuesday, November 28. Can we have a mover for
the report, please, before discussion?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona
(Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I move the subcommittee
report.
The Chair:
Do you want it read out or do you want to chat about it? Maybe we
should read it out for the record.
Your subcommittee met on
November 28, 2000, and has agreed to recommend:
(1) That the committee
schedule consideration of private member's Bill 135, Public
Hospitals Amendment Act (Patient Restraints), 2000, on Thursday,
December 14, 2000, and on Wednesday, December 20, 2000.
(2) That the committee clerk
request the House to authorize the committee to sit beyond 6 pm
on Tuesday, December 14; and to meet on December 20 (a day not a
regular meeting day of the committee). The committee will
commence meeting at 3:30 pm or following routine proceedings on
both days.
(3) That notification of the
hearings be placed on the Ontario Parliament channel asking any
interested groups or individuals to contact the clerk of the
committee by 5 pm Wednesday, December 7. The sponsor of the
bill will also provide the clerk with a list of organizations to
be scheduled.
(4) The sponsor of the bill
will be provided with an opportunity at the outset of the
hearings to make an opening statement.
(5) Witnesses will be
allocated 15-minute time slots for presentation and questions by
the members.
(6) Amendments to the bill
will be distributed as available. Clause-by-clause will commence
immediately following the completion of public hearings.
(7) That the research officer
provide the members with information on medical research and
jurisdictional comparisons by Monday, December 4, 2000.
Discussion?
Mr Brad Clark (Stoney
Creek): First, I want to apologize for being late for
the committee, but I was having discussions with Frances Lankin
and Minister Elizabeth Witmer about the subcommittee's actual
report.
I'm going to make the
recommendation, and both the Minister and Frances agreed to it,
that this particular subcommittee report be refused and rejected.
It is our commitment to Frances that we will be going to hearings
on her bill, but we would like to do it after Christmas-between
January and March is our intention-and we're working with Frances
in terms of some changes to the bill and she's doing some drafts
to it. That allows us an opportunity to talk to the OHA and a few
of the other stakeholders and allows everyone more time to plan
for the hearings.
So we will be dealing with
Frances to set the actual time frame in place.
Ms Marilyn Churley
(Toronto-Danforth): This is the first I've heard of
this, and obviously I'm going to take your word for Frances
having agreed to that. If she does, I would certainly support
it.
I just wonder about the issue
around the real possibility that the House may prorogue on the
21st, or whenever we get out, and that unless there's unanimous
consent the bill will die. Was that discussed at all?
Mr Clark:
That has been discussed, and apparently the House leaders are now
discussing it.
Ms Churley:
But if I may, Mr Chair, was it discussed with Frances? Because
there's no guarantee, I understand, that it will be held over.
What I'm trying to get at is: was she aware of that and still
agreed to this timing?
Mr Clark:
She understands very clearly. We're going to be sitting down with
her before Christmas and before the House prorogues to talk about
some of the amendments she's proposing to the bill itself. She
has already met with legislative counsel, and the commitment from
the minister and myself was that this would be dealt with after
Christmas, between January and March, for hearings. That was the
commitment. How they do that-
Ms Churley:
Just for the record, and if Ms Lankin supports this, I will
obviously support it: the process is such that when the House
prorogues, any bill that's on the order paper-and we've been
there with my adoption bill-anything on the order paper that
hasn't been completed dies unless there is unanimous consent to
carry over certain bills, and usually there's some horse-trading
between the parties about which bills. The problem, of course, is
that sometimes-in fact in the last two Parliaments, there were
upsets in the Legislature and by midnight we never got to the
motion that there would be unanimous agreement to carry certain
bills over. So as long as my
colleague is aware that could happen, that there are no
guarantees that it will be held over-
Mr Clark:
From my discussions with her, I think she's satisfied with the
fact that the minister and I and the House leader want to move
this forward. We agree in principle in terms of what the bill is
trying to accomplish. The concern for us is more in terms of the
actual consultations and making sure we have an opportunity for
all stakeholders to fully participate in it. Also, Frances is
fleshing out some other changes to it, and she's working with the
OHA on it. So regardless of whether or not the House prorogues,
there's still the commitment to deal with the issue-
Ms Churley:
In some fashion or another, even if it should die on the order
paper.
Mr Clark:
It's going to be dealt with in some fashion.
Ms Churley:
OK.
Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde
(Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Again, there's no
guarantee that when the House adjourns on the 21st, this will be
taken over to the new year in January. I wonder if Ms Lankin is
fully aware of this new development you just brought about. To
tell you the truth, I would definitely prefer it in January,
because I won't be here in December. But there's no
guarantee.
Mr Clark: I
assume that Frances Lankin, as a former Minister of Health, would
understand the rules very clearly. She spoke to us. She's also
aware that tomorrow the OHA will be announcing a province-wide
consultation on her bill, in terms of the use of restraints.
They've already named a chair to the actual consultation, and
Frances is working with the OHA and is a part of that process. So
I think she's fully aware of all the limitations and potential
risks. We all are. We're trying to work together to get the
process moving.
Mr Lalonde:
But according to what you say, you had a discussion with Ms
Lankin.
Mr Clark:
I'm a man of my word. I had the discussion.
Ms Churley:
To follow up on that, I'm sure that if there is a genuine
commitment from all three parties on this, which I believe there
is, we can do practically anything with unanimous consent. Even
if she doesn't have a private member's spot, with unanimous
consent we can bring the bill back and take it out to committee,
past first and second reading and then take it out to committee,
can we not?
Mr Clark:
And we all understand the partisan nature of the House and that
anything can happen between now and Christmas in terms of how
things will be. At the end of the day, the commitment is there by
the minister, me, Frances Lankin and Norm Sterling to work
together to find the ways and means.
Ms Churley:
If she's agreeable to that, then certainly I support it.
The Chair:
Just a clarification: the bill will stay with the committee, and
they will try to get an agreement that they would have hearings
in the new year and that it wouldn't fall through the cracks if
the House prorogues. That's my understanding. So if they have
that agreement, then that will happen.
Ms Churley:
Great. OK.
The Chair:
Any other discussion on this?
Mr Clark:
Just in terms of the formality, do we simply vote down this
subcommittee report or do we ask to withdraw the subcommittee
report? I'm not sure.
Mr Lalonde:
That the committee report be received?
Mr Clark: It
has been received.
The Chair:
Well, Mr Tascona can withdraw his motion.
Mr Tascona:
I'll withdraw the motion.
1610
OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO: STRATEGIC PLAN 2000-02
The Chair:
The next thing on the agenda is the Ombudsman, the strategic
plan. Mr Lewis, welcome. Come and have a seat.
Mr Clare
Lewis: May I be joined by Fiona Crean?
The Chair:
Yes. Welcome, and we'll let you take us through the strategic
plan.
Mr Lewis:
But not before I confess to my bad day. I'm not sure whether
you're the recipients of the error, but we're having an open
house on December 13 to celebrate the 25th year of the creation
of the office by the Davis government and Arthur Maloney being
the first Ombudsman. I've been signing letters on and off through
my work in the last couple of days and learned today that we've
been sending them out for October 13, which I think is fast. I
can't tell you how many people that went through, including
myself, and it was not noticed. I have a reputation for being a
little picky and I just keep saying to myself once in a while,
you can't try and control everything.
Mr Clark:
I'm not on many persons' lists, so don't worry about it.
Mr Lewis:
Anyway, when I don't, I get caught. I think the letters you've
got now are accurate.
Thank you very much for
receiving us today. As you know, I have committed to come before
you on an ongoing basis to hear anything you want to ask about
and to offer you any information that I think I can give you.
I've now been in office for
almost 10 months and I like it, I have to tell you; I'm sorry.
I'm being frank about it. But I also think I've learned what the
job is about. I remember I blew Mr Lalonde's question during the
competition on the issue. The learning curve is steep but it's
one I think I've got through and I'm now feeling quite
comfortable in the role.
I've been taking a number of
steps both internally and externally to give effect to what I see
as the role of the Ombudsman for the remainder of my term, just
over four years. I've been doing a lot of work internally in the
office to improve on its existing abilities, which are
considerable, and I've been doing some external work. For
instance, I've begun and am in the middle of a tour of
correctional institutions in the province; not all of them
by any means, but a good
many. I have met with a number of community groups and will
continue to do so.
I thought it was time for me
to set a vision and a strategic direction for the office. With
the assistance of my executive director, Fiona Crean, we have
prepared a two-year work plan. These things don't look like much
on paper but there's been a lot of work going on around the
details, and will continue to be.
I want to say to you-I'm
going to say it-that Fiona Crean has proved over these last 10
months to be my best asset, and I'm quite pleased to say that.
Her knowledge of the office and its values and her guidance and
strategic thinking have been very useful to me. So I want you to
know it. I'll probably get a request for a raise on the basis of
that. But there's a price for it, and the price is that she and
the managers all have in place performance contracts, and I
expect them to be met, measurements by which they will assist me
in achieving the strategic directions.
The strategic directions
which are before you are four. One is to ensure that the
Ombudsman of Ontario achieves its mandate by making relevant and
effective choices for investigations.
There was a time when the
office had over 130 people. We don't have anything like that at
this time. The budget has been throughout government-except from
where I came from before, alcohol and gaming-severely
constrained. So we have to make intelligent decisions as to what
we can do. We receive a great many complaints on an ongoing basis
but we're going to place emphasis, and have begun to do this, on
own-motion investigations. One of the questions, in fact, when I
was before you was, "What is an example of an own motion?" We
have started recently a number of investigations which we
think-we may have complaints about it, but we want to look at the
broader picture. I have recently notified three ministries, and
possibly there will be a fourth, that I will be engaging in an
own-motion investigation that will encapsulate a lot of the
complaints we get. We can't just do 20-odd-thousand complaints
every year with the staff we have.
For instance last year, you
will recall perhaps in the annual report, which I had the
privilege of presenting to you, that corrections had three
own-motion investigations, which were very successful, by the
way. We weren't playing "gotcha." What happened was that the
ministry really responded quite positively to the recommendations
and they've gone a long way toward making the improvements we
felt were necessary. So we're going to be working on that level
again, and I have to say corrections will continue to be
monitored. We don't take anything for granted.
We will be looking at an
increased use of system-wide and systemic investigations, whether
own motion or not. They will be helpful, again, to reduce
individual caseloads but also to deal with the matters that are
coming to us on a broad basis or that we see are broad.
We're going to try to deal
more effectively with multiple complaints from one person, and
that does occur; we do get them. By the way, I'm making a speech
about this in Montreal on Tuesday. The problem with multiple
complaints is that sometimes there are some real ones in there.
They're not necessarily all real, but sometimes there's a real
gem and you have to be careful not just to dismiss them. So we
are trying to become more adept at dealing with multiple
complaints, and also multiple complaints on a similar issue. So
we're starting to batch them. Basically we're trying to look at
how we can do our work on an issue basis to get the best results
for the public and for the government in the use of our
office.
This I think is important: we
want to deliver a strategically positioned public education and
outreach program that raises awareness of the office across the
province and facilitates access to the service. There's been a
long transition period between my predecessor and myself and the
visibility has gone quite low. I believe, since this is a program
offered by the Legislature through your statutes, it is important
that I put it on the map again.
I wouldn't want this to be
thought to be: I used to get accused, when I was police
complaints commissioner for the province, that I'm going out
shopping for complaints. That's not the issue. The public has a
right to know of the office's availability and what its
reasonable expectations can be, and I intend in a targeted way to
take steps to do just that.
I'll give you an example. My
predecessor did a survey of complaints and so on and we learned
that some areas of the province are quite underrepresented.
Interestingly enough, the greater Toronto area is severely
underrepresented in complaints and certain groups within that
community are underrepresented. It can't be that they don't have
any. I don't think a lot of people recognize the availability of
the service and I have an obligation to at least inform them.
1620
We intend to target some of
those groups that are more likely to need our service but the
least likely to know about it. Sometimes there are people who may
not be literate or may be poor who need to have the matter
brought home to them more directly than otherwise. It's not like
us in this room. We pretty well know how to access ways of
getting out of problems readily. We have contacts; we know
things. That's not always so. The demographic diversity of
Ontario has meant that we've developed public education and
outreach plans that are specific to each geographic area in the
province as well.
Corporate communications
include celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Ombudsman's
office. An inexpensive video of the work of the Ombudsman will be
prepared, and we have quarterly newspapers and advertising on the
cable stations that are going to commence. I hope you will be
able to accept our invitation to come up. It's a very low-key
thing. It's just coffee and juices and so on. I was saying to Ms
Boyer, whom I met today for the first time, that I remember
Arthur Maloney well, who was appointed by the Bill Davis
government as the first Ombudsman. He was a criminal lawyer; I was a
criminal lawyer. The criminal bar still has a joke, that the
government of the day didn't bother to give Arthur a budget and
he still managed to overspend it. You'll find that our
celebration is going to be considerably more modest than his
would have been.
We intend to deliver core
business outcomes against organizational standards. I want to
tell you that one thing I found when I went into the office was a
very fine set of policies, systems and procedures in place. The
tools are there. The issue is to ensure they are implemented to
the best effect. We have a computerized case management system
that was developed in-house. It is the subject of inquiry
internationally. It works extremely well and has assisted in
reducing backlogs to a very low level. It allows the staff to
operate knowledgeably and more quickly on files than was the case
previously. It does not mean we don't have some that don't fit in
that. We have a complaints resolution manual, a performance
accountability manual, a human resources policy manual, an
administrative procedures manual and well-articulated
processes.
The challenge now, and we're
in a unionized environment, is to see that those are put into
full effect in the workplace and on the floor and still maintain
wellness in the workplace. That's a challenge. It's a real issue
and one we're working on very hard.
I want to tell you, something
happened this morning that was absolutely fascinating. We knew it
was coming, but only for a week. The bargaining agents for our
union, and it hasn't always been a happy relationship, held a
breakfast for the whole staff this morning. It wasn't a Christmas
party, but it was sort of like one, a very nice event and a very
strong symbol of what's happening within the office today, in my
view. I'm very pleased about that. That'll help us to do the very
things I'm talking about here: getting the accountability
mechanisms working well.
We intend to enhance
organizational capacity through human resources management that
brings out the best in our employees, generates innovative
solutions and supports long-term performance improvement. I've
reviewed my management structure and made some changes. The most
important-I want you to know this because I think it's really an
important thing-is I have created a new position in the office.
By reason of the very large budget cuts over the past several
years and the several iterations of restructuring within the
office, what was once the position of director of investigations
was taken out and the office didn't have one. I found that odd,
but I understood how it came to pass. But the real authority of
the Ombudsman is to investigate. We have staff who do just that.
They didn't have a director; they had managers but they were
middle managers. I created a position of director of
investigation and complaints resolution, because not everything
goes to investigation. A lot of stuff is resolved very quickly
and so on. We had an extensive competition for that position. I
am really pleased. We had 106 applicants and we have hired
Canada's first woman chief of police, Lenna Bradburn from Guelph,
who was the chief there for six years.
If I can take an aside for a
minute, during the interview I said to her, "I notice from your
resumé that you were a union steward for the Toronto police
union when you were a constable." Yes, she was. "I notice you
became an elected member of the police association executive and
in fact their corporate secretary." Yes, she did. "So is it fair
to say that during that time I was your public enemy number one
as complaints commissioner?" "Oh, yes, and I picketed your
office."
She has tremendous experience
on both the union and the management side. She understands a
unionized workplace. She's very bright. She just began three
weeks ago. I think it's going to take an awful load off Fiona. It
has really been a burden for her. It's just been back-breaking. I
think that is really significant to the fulfillment of the things
we have put into our plan.
We have an extensive
corporate training program to ensure that staff skills are kept
relevant and continually developed: investigative training,
alternative dispute resolution training, and dealing with angry
members of the public, of whom we have more than a few. I had one
today on the phone. In fact, I'd just written a speech that I'm
giving next week that deals with the always complaining and often
hostile complainant, and Fiona, I guess, decided she wanted to
test whether what I was going to say was what I really understood
and believed and so she gave the man to me and it was an
experience.
We're instituting an employee
long-service program and looking at our employee recognition
program. We're looking at succession planning within the
organization, not at my level-that's your job and I'm sure you'll
get to it-but I think it's important for every organization, and
at Fiona's position we have to start developing the capacity to
fill.
Finally, we're looking at
cross-training opportunities, job rotations and job shadowing.
The staff have gone through a period of some difficulty, given
the transition, and I think we're through it and on the verge of
being a much more effective office. I wanted to share that with
you and I hope you find that of interest. I'm happy to have any
questions you might have.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): I have a couple. Mr Lewis, last
year-I'm not sure whether it was when we were doing the interview
or whether it was your first report to the committee-there was
some concern about a caseload backlog and I was wondering what
the progress is on that.
Mr Lewis:
We're doing very well. It's really quite-
Mr
Wettlaufer: In terms of percentages?
Mr Lewis:
Can you tell me that, Fiona?
Ms Fiona
Crean: There is no backlog.
Mr Lewis:
That's what I thought.
Mr
Wettlaufer: There is no backlog? Very good.
Mr Lewis:
That can vary from week to week, but not much. We've achieved
that.
Mr
Wettlaufer: The other question I have is rather delicate
and I'm sure you can provide the answer. When Ms Bradburn was chief of police in the city of
Guelph, her term was rather controversial at times. I was
wondering if you could shed some light on that.
Mr Lewis:
Sure. It's interesting. Up until three weeks ago, four weeks ago,
there were three women who were chiefs of police in Canada. There
were Lenna, Christine Silverberg in Calgary, who also came from
Toronto, and there was, as the commissioner of the OPP, Gwen
Boniface. I know enough about policing to know that is an
extraordinarily difficult environment for a woman to be in, to be
a chief, and Lenna was very young when she went in; she was 34 or
35. There's no doubt the board was courageous. I think they were
right. She was bright, but she was not only bright, she was
young, she was a woman and you'd have an awful lot of older
officers there who would have more than a little thought about
that.
1630
She was a change agent.
That's what she was. She went very hard into community policing
initiatives. She went into a levelling of the ranks in the force,
which is always a matter of tremendous fury in a police force.
When Toronto did away with the rank of detective, it had horrible
ramifications for then-Chief Marks. So when Chief McCormack came
along, he stuck the rank back in again. You would be familiar. I
think last year the association held a vote of its members and
came up with a 94% kick-her-out rate.
That happened to Christine
Silverberg too, and I'm not impressed. I'm sorry, I'm simply not
impressed. I know the business and I know the level of anger. I
also know that a good many of the people don't know what they're
voting about. I looked at the press on her leaving and the local
Guelph newspaper-I can't comment on this; I don't know its
politics or anything else-was very supportive of her and quite
condemnatory of the treatment she received from the association.
She's courageous, and that's what I want. She's innovative, and
that's what I want. She may well have problems with me, I don't
know, but I don't think I got a failure. Let me be very clear
about that.
Christine Silverberg is
terrific. You wouldn't believe the trouble she went through when
she got out there, and it stayed; it never ended. They have to
have a lot of confidence and ability to handle it. Six years is a
long time. Chiefs don't stay very long usually; they really
don't.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Thank you.
Mr Lewis: I
think it's a fair question, by the way, Mr Wettlaufer. I
considered it pretty closely.
Mr
Wettlaufer: I think it's good for everyone on the
committee to know too.
Mr Lewis:
Yes. Thank you.
Ms
Churley: You say there is no backlog. You talked earlier
about having to streamline and focus on particular areas, I
guess, and in systemic situations. I'd like a little bit more
information about what kinds of cases you were doing that you can
no longer do or choose not to do, given the new strategic
approach.
Mr Lewis:
We're not not doing any kinds of cases. What we're doing is
looking at them from the point of view of, can we do them in
batches? Do they raise a sufficient number of complaints in an
area that we should be dealing with it as a system-wide matter,
rather than doing the individual investigations where we're not
necessarily going to come up with a result that is going to
particularly benefit the person, but they raise issues we can
deal with on a broader level? Then we do it. We've dealt with the
Family Responsibility Office in the past. There's been a lot of
that stuff.
In 1996 there was a
backlog, but they were down to 68 staff at that time from 135. No
matter how you slice it, it's going to have problems. But we've
built it up a bit. We're up to about 85 now. You're not going to
say I'm an empire builder for that. I don't know that except for
the position for Lenna Bradburn, we've actually increased
anything yet. Have we a little bit?
Ms Crean:
No, but I think the point too is that the Board of Internal
Economy recognized that two years ago and provided the Ombudsman
with sufficient funds to get rid of the backlog.
Mr Lewis:
And the systems that are now in place are very helpful in doing
that.
Ms
Churley: You talked about budget cuts. How much is your
budget now? I'm sure that information is available but I've
forgotten.
Mr Lewis:
Just over $8 million.
Ms
Churley: What was it?
Mr Lewis:
A 30% cut.
Ms
Churley: The reason I'm asking these questions is that
I'm very pleased to hear you're doing some education and getting
information out. You say, for instance, that Metro Toronto is
underrepresented. Of course the reality is that as soon as you
make yourself more known out there, you're going to have more
cases. I presume you're planning for that so you won't end up
with a backlog again.
Mr Lewis:
That's right. We don't want a backlog, so we have to figure out
what we're going to do. I don't want a complaints shop, but if
I'm successful in getting the word out, there are going to be
more complaints. I've got to cope with them. That's why we want
to get the shop in order, to be able to do it, if I succeed,
through public education. That's really what it's about.
Ms Crean:
The other side of it is that the more public education you do,
fewer non-jurisdictional complaints will come in.
Mr Lewis:
That's true.
Ms Crean:
So a large part of our work has been re-referring or referring
people elsewhere. We need to get the word out about what we are
able to do versus what we can't.
Ms
Churley: I want to ask you very specifically about
adoption disclosure.
Mr Lewis:
Gee, that's a surprise.
Ms
Churley: I have my notes. I brought them from the last
meeting. I couldn't find them anywhere, and that's why I was digging through my
briefcase. It was on the back of this and I'm trying to turn it
over.
Mr Lewis:
OK, and I've got mine.
Ms
Churley: You've got yours. You were expecting this
question.
I've been receiving
complaints again from some members in the adoption community. I
remember that the last time you outlined, on adoption disclosure,
one of the three concerns you specifically brought up when you
first came. I asked you then about the $2.4 million that was
allocated-I'm having trouble hearing myself talk here-and if they
gave you a work plan at that time as to how they were going to
use that to achieve dealing with their backlog. I asked you the
date the backlog would be eliminated, because at the time we
spoke my information told me it was seven to 10 years.
Mr Lewis:
That was right.
Ms
Churley: At the time you said you weren't aware of a
work plan and didn't know what the end date was, so I just wanted
an update.
Mr Lewis:
I replied to that. I wrote to you on June 28, or I wrote to the
committee.
Ms
Churley: Yes, you did.
Mr Lewis:
I received the information from the then deputy, but I have
updated information today.
Ms
Churley: Yes, that's what I wanted.
Mr Lewis:
Yes, I've got that.
Ms
Churley: You're very prepared. You knew this was coming,
absolutely.
1640
Mr Lewis:
It's an important issue. I'm really concerned about it. I think
8.1 years was the average before they would start an
investigation. So this was a pretty serious issue, and that was
an own motion investigation. They committed to allocate $2.4
million and they did it. They committed to hire an additional
24.5 staff and they have now done it. They said they would
eliminate the backlog in 18 months. You wanted to know what was
the start date. They said they were starting the 18 months
running in July 2000, as a start date, with a targeted completion
date of December 2001.
The progress report by the
current deputy, which I received on November 3, and by the
assistant registrar of the adoption disclosure section on
November 23, is as follows: they are on target to eliminate the
backlog by December 2001, which is 20 months from April but 18
from the date they said they were going to start the clock going.
All 24.5 staff have been hired and formal training has been
completed. The waiting list is down. In February 1998 they had
16,783 requests for disclosure. That was reduced to 15,000, and
to 11,300 in December 1999. By February of this year, which is
when I began, they had 10,413 cases. In September they had 6,818,
so it's now starting to drop at a more significant rate. In
November, just two months later, they had 4,678.
The waiting period is down,
and you're not going to be happy when you hear it, but it's not
over either. I'm not a booster here, but we're just in the
period. The previous records: in March 1999, the waiting period
was 7.3 years, and that was the waiting period to start the
investigation, which on average would then take about eight
months, as I recall. It was 6.5 years in November 1999. When I
started it was 6.25 years, a slight betterment, 6 years in March,
4.5 years as of November 3, and they're claiming that by November
23 the waiting list was 4 years.
It's 1,600 searches that
have been completed in the first six months of the current fiscal
year, 2000-01, compared to 2,100 completed in all of 1999-2000. I
would expect that to accelerate by reason of their training now
being completed and their staffing. They say they're still on
target. I intend to monitor. Is that useful information?
Ms
Churley: Yes; that's very useful.
Mr Lewis:
But you're right; complaints are still going to come in.
Ms
Churley: I'm pleased, even though I don't support this
approach.
Mr Lewis:
I know that.
Ms
Churley: I'm pleased to see that the waiting list is
being reduced. I'm still getting calls from very distressed
people, and I presume you are too from time to time because the
waiting list is so long.
Just briefly, on Highway
407, are you still getting complaints about that? I am, just
recently. It all died down for a while and suddenly-there was a
question in the Legislature the other day. I didn't raise it in
the House, but I gave some complaints I had received to the
minister, to try to deal with this.
Mr Lewis:
The background to this is that that was the very first own motion
that I'd done. I did it almost immediately after coming into
office, with 407, which was a privatization issue but the
government retained the enforcement power by denying licences in
order to collect fees for the private partner. That's fine, but
they didn't build an accountability system into it and they
didn't do a proper appeal process. I ended the investigation when
it was clear the ministry was acting on it very quickly and
putting it together.
You're right, in the last
very short time more complaints have come forward. I can say this
to you: I am researching it at the moment.
Ms
Churley: Yes. I was wondering if you knew why.
Mr Lewis:
No, that's what we're looking at.
Ms
Churley: I spoke to the minister and asked him if he
could try to find out what was going on. He was very concerned
about it too.
Mr Lewis:
I'm sure he is. This is brand new. When we got it, it was evident
right away. We're looking at it and, if necessary, and I don't
know whether it will be necessary, it could be another own motion
but I don't know-re-open the existing one is really what it
is.
Ms
Churley: Those are my questions. Thank you.
The Chair:
Are there any other questions?
Mr
Lalonde: I have a quick one. In the introduction in your
paper you indicate in point 2 "increase the visibility of
Ombudsman Ontario." Do you have any recommendation for that? We
know there are very few people who know how to get to your office
or when they should be going to the Ombudsman.
Mr Lewis: Yes, I do. I think the
Ombudsman, myself, has to get out and about.
Mr
Lalonde: I don't think it's enough.
Mr Lewis:
No, it's not, but that's a fact, that it has to happen. It hasn't
been a great deal up till now. We have a lot of staff but the
Toronto area is a problem. We don't have enough staff available
for Toronto. The people in our now very few regional offices do a
lot of outreach. I appeared at the International Plowing Match
this year, wearing my John Deere cap, because I just got myself a
little tractor and I'm a member of the Ontario Federation of
Agriculture. That's a very effective place for us to be.
If you've got ideas, Mr
Lalonde, I'd be delighted to hear some. I mentioned some of the
initiatives we intend to take.
Mr
Lalonde: Even though you are appearing as Ombudsman of
Ontario, that doesn't tell the people what you are there for.
Mr Lewis:
No. We've got to be explicit. I agree.
Mr
Lalonde: We need publicity in the paper to see what the
services are that you could render to the population.
Mr Lewis:
I can remember when Dan Hill was advertising, but he had money to
advertise and I don't have money to advertise.
Mr
Lalonde: I guess we'll have to use our householder to do
it.
Mr Lewis:
In your own constituency, I have to tell you, it's a two-member
office. We lost one who went off to private work. We have just
now been able to get a new one, who is transferring from another
one of our offices. The office just moved, as a matter of fact,
to almost across the road from Ms Boyer, I believe. I was just
there a week ago. But you're right: it's a constant
challenge.
Mr
Lalonde: What I would ask from you-sorry, I don't want
to keep it too long-if you could give us a list of all your
responsibilities. We'll use this list and put it into our
householder.
Mr Lewis:
Oh, I see. You'd do that. All right. Thank you.
The Chair:
Are there any other questions? If not, Mr Lewis and Ms Crean,
thanks very much for coming. We'll look forward to your open
house on December 13. I'm quite sure that those members who can
attend will attend and, for those who can't, have a great
Christmas and holiday season to both of you and all your staff.
Please pass that on to your staff from the Legislative Assembly
committee.
Mr Lewis:
I shall. Thank you very much.
I know I always do this:
could I say one more thing?
The Chair:
Absolutely.
Mr Lewis:
There are a number of issues coming to completion right now that,
if they don't resolve, might find their way before you. As you
know, that's a possibility. If I feel there is something that
needs remedy and I can't get agreement, then I have to come and
try to persuade you. I don't know how they're going to go, but
they are at the stage where we're about to find out, and a couple
of them are pretty interesting.
The Chair:
I think that was the idea, that we meet fairly regularly, and
anything we can assist on, we'd be more than pleased to.
Mr Lewis:
You may or may not assist after you hear the argument.
The Chair:
Maybe that's the wrong terminology-listen, then. Again, I
appreciate it very much.
BILINGUAL YOUTH PARLIAMENT
The Chair:
The final thing on the agenda today is a letter that I assume all
the members got. It's from M. Lalonde regarding the
Bilingual Youth Parliament. Possibly, Monsieur Lalonde, you would
like to make a little presentation on it or explain it, and then
I'm quite sure there will be questions and we'll go from
there.
Mr
Lalonde: I will be as brief as possible.
In most of the French
countries at the present time-I attended one in Yaoundé,
Cameroon, this past July, and there will be one next July in
Quebec City-there is a young Parliament. When we say "young
Parliament," the reason it's on the agenda is because we would
like to have the permission of this committee that it would
recommend to the Speaker of the House that the House could be
utilized by those young students, and we will ask each riding to
appoint a person. That would be using the Legislative Assembly
for a maximum of four days during the summer period or at another
time. But we have to have permission from this committee.
The Chair:
I may be not reading it right. This program is facilitated by the
Legislative Assembly. Are you suggesting that this committee
would facilitate the program as such, or would that be done by
the group from the French parliamentarians' association that was
involved with that last week. That's the number one question. The
other one is, is this a request to use the facility only, and
would there be a cost factor that we would have to-
1650
Mr
Lalonde: Not by this committee. It will be to use the
facility only in the time-
The Chair:
Only.
Mr
Lalonde: Yes. The rest will be handled by our people.
When I say our people, from the-
The Chair:
Through the French parliamentarians' association or whatever you
call it.
Mr
Lalonde: Not necessarily.
Ms Donna
Bryce: We need to clarify this paragraph.
The Chair:
I guess that's what's causing problems, the second-to-last
paragraph:
"My proposal was originally
debated amongst the members.... My objective is to develop and
offer a bilingual program at the assembly that is accessible to
students from across the" country. "This initiative will be
planned, co-ordinated and organized by the Legislative Assembly
to include the involvement of members of all three parties."
I think the concern that
may appear is that all of it is going to be done by the
Legislative Assembly committee, "planned, co-ordinated and organized," by the
staff, I guess, but that's not what's happening?
Mr
Lalonde: When we say "the staff," the staff will be like
Katch Koch.
Ms Bryce:
Interparliamentary and public relations.
The Chair:
But not the staff of the Legislative Assembly.
Ms Bryce:
Yes, but they're the staff of-
The Chair:
But only that area, though, of the-
Ms Bryce:
Yes.
Mr
Lalonde: We haven't come up with any details yet. At the
present time, we've been working with Katch. People like Marcel
Beaubien, Claudette and, I believe, Gilles Bisson, will be
looking at how this is going to be implemented and then we will
come back with that. At the present time, we need permission to
use the facilities.
The Chair:
So you're looking for approval in principle to use it subject to
how it all goes together.
Mr
Lalonde: At the present time, we have Upper Canada
College, which is running one in the summertime that only lasts
two days, I believe. This one-
Interjections.
The Chair:
There is a policy that was set back in 1996.
Ms Bryce:
It may interest the committee to know that this committee used to
routinely get requests from colleges and universities to use the
chamber. This committee in 1996 agreed that any requests would be
approved as long as they met the criteria that were set out in
the policy. That stands. That's on the books. I think the
difference with this one is that with these model Parliaments
that would be used through our Parliament, the costs are incurred
through the colleges and the universities. I suspect the
difference with this one is that it would be a program run by the
Legislative Assembly. The committee approving it in principle
today means that a proposal would still have to go to the Board
of Internal Economy to get funds to run the program. I guess
that's why it's on the agenda today.
Mr
Lalonde: We haven't set the age yet. The others are up
to 18 years of age. We don't know yet. It's just to know if the
facilities would be made available to operate this program.
Ms
Churley: This has happened on many occasions. I fully
support it in principle. I don't know if you were going to make a
motion. Do you want to make a motion?
The Chair:
Could somebody make a motion.
Mr
Lalonde: I move that this committee support in principle
the-mettre à la disposition. How do you say it?
The Chair:
To support in principle the development of and offer a bilingual
program for youth and use the facilities?
Ms Bryce:
As outlined in Mr Lalonde's letter dated November 27.
The Chair:
Is that OK? Any discussion? All in favour? We'll read that it was
unanimous.
Ms
Churley: We don't often get to do that.
The Chair:
That's why I wanted it down there. I think that is the end of the
agenda unless there's something else.
