CONTENTS
Wednesday 3 April 1991
Ombudsman of Ontario
Adjournment
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
Chair: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East NDP)
Vice-Chair: White, Drummond (Durham Centre NDP)
Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North L)
Duignan, Noel (Halton North NDP)
Fawcett, Joan M. (Northumberland L)
Henderson, D. James (Etobicoke-Humber L)
Huget, Bob (Sarnia NDP)
Mammoliti, George (Yorkview NDP)
Mathyssen, Irene (Middlesex NDP)
Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre NDP)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North PC)
Substitutions:
Fletcher, Derek (Guelph NDP) for Mr Morrow
Klopp, Paul (Huron NDP) for Mr Mammoliti
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP) for Mr White
Clerk: Carrozza, Franco
Staff: Murray, Paul, Research Officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1015 in room 151.
OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO
The Chair: I see a quorum. I am Mark Morrow, Chair of the standing committee on the Ombudsman. I would like to welcome everybody who is gathered here. I would like to introduce Roberta Jamieson, the Ombudsman. I would ask you at this time to make some statements and then we would like to ask you some questions, if you would not mind.
Ms Jamieson: Well, sago, in my language, good morning, bonjour. I am delighted to be here with the committee in the presence of the Chair. I have been looking forward to this meeting for some time. I have looked forward to it since my appointment, really, in October 1989.
My hope was, and is, that with so many new faces on the committee in particular, we will be able to get off to a fresh and productive start. I am, however, a little disappointed that my offer and invitation to meet you informally for a frank discussion on roles was not taken up before we had a formal session, but I am still hopeful we can get off to a good start. I had prepared my remarks believing we would be having an informal session, but I am quite prepared to have them on the public record.
We each have complementary roles to play in assisting the people of Ontario to receive the highest possible quality of public administration. In the tradition of Ombudsmanship which has developed for some time now, the Ombudsman is an officer of the Legislative Assembly, of which you are members, as is true of other officials, such as the Speaker and the senior Clerk. I am here to serve the Legislature, but because the Ombudsman must have an independence and neutrality as well as considerable authority, the difference between myself and other officials of the Legislature is that my mandate and powers have been established by an act of the Assembly. The Ombudsman is independent of government, able to look at a matter objectively, expertly and impartially.
Traditionally, democratic government has relied upon the courts to keep in check inequities in government administration. Courts make findings, as you know, according to fine points of law in a fairly limited scope, not as to whether an action of government officials was unjust, unfair or just plain wrong.
In my view, the Legislature established an Ombudsman as its officer, a trustee, if you will, to assist it in fulfilling its democratic responsibilities by providing an alternative to the courts -- a much cheaper one, and hopefully one that moves much faster. The ambit and scope of the powers given to the Ombudsman by the Legislature to investigate concerns raised by members of the public in their dealings with government officials are broader than the scope of review of the courts. Unlike the courts, the Ombudsman's function is designed to permit redress of public actions which are unjust or which do not meet the standards a citizen can reasonably expect in the administration of government.
The process of the Ombudsman is flexible, rather than one governed by rigid rules. A member of the public receives prompt determination regarding a complaint, without the necessity of legal counsel. I have assigned members of my staff to interview anyone who has an issue or a concern about government, and I have skilled investigators to determine the facts on which I reach my conclusions.
It should be noted that I do not automatically take the citizen's point of view. Neither do I automatically look for a way to apologize for government actions. To those who would wish the Ombudsman to be more of an advocate, I say I have more influence if I have a reputation of objective fairness.
I do not have the power to give any orders or to force my recommendation to be acted upon. I rely upon reason, persuasion and the support and prestige which the people of Ontario bestow on my office. In addition, I rely on the goodwill of the government, and ultimately on the Legislature, to accept and act on the recommendations of its officer and trustee the Ombudsman, and that is where our roles converge. This committee is quite unique among other committees of the Legislature, to reflect, I believe, the uniqueness of the Ombudsman's mandate and relationship to the Legislature.
Here is how we converge. In situations where government does not follow my recommendations, I may choose to bring the matter to your attention. The Legislature has created this committee to assist it in considering my reports and the action I am recommending. That is the traditional and original role of the committee as I see it, and I will be looking forward to hearing your own views in a few moments on just that subject.
I mention this at the outset because somehow in recent years, in my opinion, the relationship between the Ombudsman and the committee has kind of slid off the tracks. Somehow it seemed to have been forgotten that the Ombudsman was an officer of the Legislature, not a creature of government. It may not be too strong to say, if you look back at the last couple of years, that even an adversarial relationship developed between the Ombudsman and the committee.
I can share a few examples. I have been asked, for instance, to provide my files to the committee, although by law I am prohibited from doing so, and of course I am not able to comply with that request. In the past I have found the committee considering me as if I were a party to a complaint. There was even a suggestion that I go to arbitration regarding a recommendation I made.
Maybe there are those who would disagree with my view of the committee's role and its past course of action, but I think it best if I talk frankly with you and encourage you to talk frankly with me. I would only ask that we attempt to maintain the dialogue as long and as frequently as necessary so that we can develop a consensus on a productive working relationship, which I believe we all owe the people of this province.
In the vast majority of cases that I deal with, my staff is able to assist persons with concerns and public officials to arrive at a mutually satisfactory resolution, one that meets standards of fairness I am pledged to uphold. When this cannot be done at the outset, I conduct a formal investigation. Even during the course of this investigation, often a resolution is achieved; if not, however, my duty is to arrive at a finding, and usually the findings are accompanied with recommendations. Again, in the vast majority of situations which have reached that point, the recommendations are accepted and implemented. In those few instances -- and I am pleased to say they are few -- in which the head of the organization decides not to implement my recommendations, I have the option of pursuing the matter, not only with the minister responsible but also with the Premier. If those avenues are not successful, I have the option of placing the matter before the Legislature, which usually refers my report to this committee.
I can assure you that before I refer a matter to the Legislature, I will have given the case a very careful review and a great deal of deliberate consideration. I will have examined the case afresh and I will have satisfied myself that an extensive and complete investigation was made. I will know that my expert advice, any that has been furnished, is of the best possible quality. I will have intensively questioned my investigative and legal staff until I am satisfied with their answers. I will have re-examined all available evidence. I will have satisfied myself that all questions, facts or objections raised by the ministry or agency complained against have been diligently investigated and given full consideration. You can be sure, then, that if I have resorted to referring a matter to the Legislature, I have not done so casually.
My objective will be clear and up front. I will be seeking the support of the Legislature in getting my recommendations implemented. If I am requested to do so, I will appear before you to explain my recommendations in detail. Both in my report to the Legislature and in my appearance before its committees, I understand my responsibility to demonstrate to you that I have fully complied with my mandate in making my findings and in determining my recommendations. I understand you are going to want to confirm that. I know that you will want to assure yourselves that I have done all the things I said I would do: carefully reviewed the facts, inquired into all relevant circumstances, meticulously reviewed the ministry's response and so on. If you are satisfied that is so, my hope is that you would decide to support my recommendations.
Of course, you might also want to discuss the matter with the head of the government organization or other officials, even to exercise some degree of persuasion and to make your own recommendation to the Legislature that it pass a resolution or change a law or take other appropriate action. It is the potential of ultimate public scrutiny by the Legislature which provides the Ombudsman with her strongest weapon in encouraging government to make appropriate settlements with its citizens. However, if this committee and/or the Legislature decide not to support my recommendations, then that is where the matter dies for me. I have done my duty. My mandate has been fulfilled. I accept that as your role.
As an officer of the Legislature, I do not think it is my responsibility to second-guess it. Neither do I see it as the role of committee, and committee has said this itself, to act as an appeal court to rehear the evidence. It would be a waste of resources to have both the committee and the Ombudsman do the same thing. The committee is also not in the same position as the Ombudsman to find the facts initially. I have got some pretty vigorous investigative powers available which you have given to the Ombudsman. Last, it would certainly undermine the Ombudsman's authority and the respect for it as an institution.
Having said that, certainly I will not come before you and present contrary facts. I should say also that although one or both parties, speaking then of the individual who has complained and the ministry involved, are not always happy with my findings and my recommendations, it is they who are in dispute, not the Ombudsman against a ministry.
There is a second role of this committee which involves the setting of regulations under the Ombudsman Act. Some years back the committee felt that it would be assisted in that role if it were to hear comments from the public about its experiences with the Ombudsman. That role too seems to have slid far from its original purpose.
1030
If I may suggest it, it is of course proper, even necessary, that the committee examine letters of complaint and concern which it receives in order to consider whether its review of the matter would assist its regulatory responsibility. I know you have that under the act and I know you are able and make guidelines and regulations for the office of the Ombudsman. Where this is not the case, however, the committee might explain that since the Ombudsman's decisions are not coupled with the power of enforcement, there is no right of appeal, including an appeal to committee.
I can assure you that any ordinary concerns about the service rendered by my office will receive my personal attention and I welcome any referrals of concern directly to me. Where matters coming to the committee's attention could have an impact on regulations, I will be pleased to appear before committee to explain procedures or the general courses of action which are taken under my direction. I may have suggestions for regulatory change which will improve the quality of service provided by my office. You will receive my full co-operation in these matters, I want to assure you.
What I cannot do, however, is to share my files or comment directly on a particular case. Any complainant is of course free to share with you any of his or her letters from me, and as I understand it, that is all past committees have wished to see. My unwillingness to share internal files and correspondence with ministries is a result of the legislation, of course, and I believe it is a wise limitation if the involvement of the Ombudsman is to be perceived by the public as fully and inviolably confidential. I can of course discuss with the committee the general process and procedure which I follow and am happy to do so.
There is a third role which I would hope this committee would play, and it is an informal one. Ombudsmanship is evolving to fit changing circumstances and times and it is my own goal to keep Ontario on the leading edge. I would value your ideas, and in my annual report, which I hope to have before you in a few months, I will be suggesting some areas which I myself would like to explore. I spent a full year, as some of you may know, as an ex officio member of a full-time parliamentary committee and I recognize the need for formal sessions and a formal relationship. I recognize that there is also great potential value in informal discussions about philosophical and practical issues.
In the context of my annual report as well, I am going to be suggesting some changes which I foresee as necessary if the Ombudsman is to provide the quality of service which the people of the province expect and deserve and which I know you will want them to have. Both formally and informally I will be seeking your support so this standard can be achieved.
So that we keep in good communication, I have appointed two senior staff members to keep on top of liaison with the Legislature, with each member, with your staffs and with this committee. They are Fiona Crean, who is the new director of community access and intake, and LaVerne Monette, who is the senior policy adviser with my office. If they can be of any assistance, I know they are going to respond to your direct inquiries or inquiries made through your clerk on your behalf. With your permission, I will maintain my direct relationship with this committee through the Chair.
In the past, committees have had an orientation session with senior staff in my office. I am happy to continue that, and I would hope at that stage we will have an opportunity to talk about, and I will be happy to talk about process. I am happy to acquaint you with how we go about an investigation and for you to hear directly from my staff as well as from me. I look forward to that session as being one of very meaningful substance.
In conclusion, thank you for allowing me to set out my ideas and my concerns. I hope they will be useful in stimulating and focusing us on issues which I consider to be important in supporting each other's roles.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jamieson. Before we move into questions, I have one announcement. The Chair will be leaving at 11 o'clock this morning, so I would like to appoint Irene Mathyssen as the Chair at 11 o'clock, if we do not have a problem with that. Can we move on to, I would hope, an open and frank discussion with Ms Jamieson.
Mr Curling: Ms Jamieson, it is good of you to be here and I know you have met this committee before. I myself and my colleagues wanted to have this meeting of this nature. I regard this as the most important committee in the entire Legislature. I say that very seriously because as the society becomes complex -- we have the kind of society that we have here in Ontario, so diverse and so multicultural and multilingual -- one of the problems that is faced is poor communication. A great amount of bureaucracy is being set up and a tremendous amount of money is being spent just to resolve problems or to get the discouraged and the disfranchised and all those people who are just not a part of the system what is fair to them.
Of course, there were some unfortunate comments made in the past. I had hoped that when we had those breaks in the summer and the winter break, we would have been able to have done some work without being caught up with the sitting of the House and all that because there is more time, I would dare say, to do so. We were not able to do that. I presume that maybe the government felt this was not an important committee at that time. Now we have got to catch up, and that would not discourage me or my colleagues at all, to make sure it works.
The reason I feel this committee is important is that I feel the Ontario Human Rights Commission itself does not have -- I would put it in this diplomatic way -- the adequate resources to do it without this tremendous backlog. I do not intend to come to committee to find out which government or which party was neglectful in this. It does not matter. The individual out there will not have his case heard, will be deprived of just the worth while of living. If they work efficiently sometimes you do not get that spinoff of the job there.
I think we have very capable people in the human rights and all the other bureaucracies. However, within the Ombudsman realm it seems to me that -- maybe you could educate me in this respect, as to what country and government work very closely with the ombudspeople, the Ombudsman committee role, because I think governments do not like ombudsmen. Although they put it there, they feel it is one of those things that is there to be as image, to say, "We are getting things done." It is not only that you have explained in detail the process by which you get things done; it will not work unless the committee itself supports your work and makes sure that your investigation is carried out without interference. However, there are corporations which we need here from time to time.
With your assistance, I think we can do a very effective job. When I say "we," I do not intend to speak for the government side or for the third party, but I know that my colleague here and I intend to make sure this committee works. There are questions later on that I would like to offer. I would just like to make very plain at the opening how we stand.
Mrs Mathyssen: Mr Chair, the government requests a five-minute recess, please.
The committee recessed at 1040.
1048
Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to thank you for coming here today. I appreciate what you have said so far, but as a new member and just being newly elected, I have a hard time just understanding the role of our committee and of yourself, and in your remarks I was glad to hear that you said you would give us an orientation. I think that is the best way to go, because at this point I could only ask you questions about cases, and we maybe should not be doing that. I may be asking questions that could easily be answered, but in the way I ask them cannot be easily answered because I do not understand them.
I think that unless there are questions that are just about normal day duties, we could easily adjourn. If you would set up an orientation meeting, we could sit down and run through our role and your role, and maybe even some cases could be given to us that have happened before that this committee has dealt with, so we just understand it a lot more. At least, that is the way I feel about it.
The Chair: Is there a motion on the floor to adjourn?
Mr B. Murdoch: I would make that motion.
The Chair: The motion to adjourn is on the floor. All in favour? Opposed? Carried.
Just before we adjourn, Ms Jamieson, I would like to thank you for taking the time to come here and see us.
Mr Curling: Just one little point: We never had a little debate about it first; we just took the vote.
The Chair: An adjournment motion, Mr Curling, is a non-debatable motion. Ms Jamieson, thank you very much for taking your time to come to see us this morning.
Mr Fletcher: You are going to be setting up an orientation?
Ms Jamieson: I was just about to ask you. Do I take it then, Mr Chair, that I am to proceed to organize the orientation session?
The Chair: Please do.
Ms Jamieson: I would be happy to, and I invite you to my office to have a look-see and a discussion how we conduct our business, and I would be happy to answer the questions I am able to answer at that stage.
The Chair: Ms Jamieson, perhaps you could please direct that through the clerk, if you would not mind.
Ms Jamieson: Certainly. I will have my staff co-operate fully with the clerk to organize the details.
The committee adjourned at 1051.