CONTENTS
Tuesday 18 August 1992
Review of the Office of the Ombudsman
Robert Gateman
Margaret Hutchison
Board of Internal Economy
Hon David Warner, chair
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
*Chair / Président: Morrow, Mark (Wentworth East/-Est ND)
*Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente: Haeck, Christel (St Catharines-Brock ND)
*Akande, Zanana L. (St Andrew-St Patrick ND)
Drainville, Dennis (Victoria-Haliburton ND)
*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
Henderson, D. James (Etobicoke-Humber L)
Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings/Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud ND)
Miclash, Frank (Kenora L)
*Murdoch, Bill (Grey PC)
*Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview ND)
*Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
Witmer, Elizabeth (Waterloo North/-Nord PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants:
*Callahan, Robert V. (Brampton South/-Sud L) for Mr Henderson
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L) for Mr Miclash
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND) for Mr Johnson
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Mr Drainville
*Villeneuve, Noble (S-D-G & East Grenville/S-D-G & Grenville-Est PC) for Mrs Witmer
*In attendance / présents:
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Murray, Paul, committee counsel and research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1012 in room 151.
REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The Chair (Mr Mark Morrow): To the viewing audience, this is the standing committee on the Ombudsman. I'm the Chair, Mark Morrow. We're here for the next two weeks by a motion passed in the Legislative Assembly, July 23, authorizing us to review the Office of the Ombudsman. I welcome you. Now I will turn the chair over to the clerk to advise us of the latest updates.
Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): To bring you all up to date, at our last meeting of the committee on July 15, the clerk was directed on a number of motions approved by the committee specifically to advertise the committee's hearings, which was done on July 30, and also to prepare a listing of witnesses, which was also approved by the committee. You have before you a copy of the list of expert witnesses we have invited. The other item is that the agenda is prepared for the approval of the subcommittee and was delivered to the members.
We also have a listing of questions prepared by our research department that were mailed to the expert witnesses to permit them to focus better on the area that the committee wishes them to give us evidence on. You have that before you.
I'd like to inform you that there are approximately 10 groups that we have invited that request of the committee that they be permitted to send us a written submission. Then, if the committee sees the submission and wishes them to appear in September, they request that they be allowed to appear.
I'll give you the names of them to keep you informed: Information and Privacy Commissioner; Ontario Teachers' Federation; Ontario Hospital Association; Professor Rowat from Carleton University; the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal; the Social Assistance Review Board; Ontario Human Rights Commission; Association of Municipalities of Ontario; the Law Society of Upper Canada; the Ombudsman of New Brunswick.
I also have prepared the agenda for the upcoming two weeks. There is one addition for this afternoon, our Speaker, David Warner. We have invited him in his capacity as the chair of the Board of Internal Economy for the Legislature of Ontario. He will appear at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
I also must inform you that the Ombudsman of Ontario has prepared a special report for the Legislature. It was tabled before the Clerk yesterday afternoon.
Yesterday morning the subcommittee of the committee met. It had invited the Ombudsman of Ontario to appear before it in a closed session. The Ombudsman did not appear. That is the report; there was no subcommittee meeting.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Did you get anything on why she did not appear? Did she give a reason?
Clerk of the Committee: She sent each member of the committee a letter which was received, I believe, Monday morning. I brought copies of it to the subcommittee. I received them in my office. They were delivered on Sunday. I received them on Monday morning.
That is all I have at this time.
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Just a question in terms of witnesses: The list of people you've mentioned, are they the only witnesses we have planned to come to --
Clerk of the Committee: No. We advertised across the province in the dailies. There were a number of individuals the subcommittee agreed to hear from. You will find them in your agenda.
Mr Mammoliti: I haven't had a chance to go through all these papers, but there's a suggestion I'd like to make. Have we made any attempts to let all staff in the Ombudsman's office know that we're looking for witnesses? I certainly would like to ask a few of them some questions in terms of what's been happening in the office over the last little while.
I don't know whether you'd want me to put a request forward at this level. I don't know at this point. How you want me to do that, Mr Chair, is totally up to you. I certainly would like the staff of the Ombudsman's office to know that we're conducting this. Perhaps a letter of some sort to them might be appropriate.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mammoliti. That's a very complicated question. If you wouldn't mind, I'll let the clerk answer that.
Clerk of the Committee: When we last met, the committee decided to advertise across the province to permit individuals who had any information to add to our committee review to do so. At this time, I am not aware of any individual who has requested that who works presently with the Ombudsman. The committee can review that, if it wishes, at a later time to make that recommendation. It's totally up to the committee. At this time there is not.
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chair, you know the involvement I've had in this issue from day one. It's certainly been an issue that I feel strongly about, not only because I'm hearing complaints in my constituency office, but I'm hearing them down here as well. I'm hearing from staff members at the Ombudsman's office as well. Again, I'd like to make whatever recommendations possible at this point to issue a letter to the staff at the Ombudsman's office, letting them know that we're conducting this, and that if they'd like to be a witness, this is the level that perhaps they could be heard at.
The Chair: Is that a motion you're putting on the floor?
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I think, with respect to my colleague, that I'm sure the staff of the Ombudsman's office is acutely aware of the committee's review. I think that by sending correspondence like that, it may be viewed as a provocative measure rather than an invitation. I think some level of diplomacy is called for at this point, so I would quietly and humbly suggest that we wait to see how this situation plays itself out.
1020
Mr Curling: I fully agree with Mr Owens. I think if we have the Ombudsman herself here, that is quite sufficient and any other investigation and research could be conducted in a different manner. My question, though, I want to put to the clerk: I notice under boards and agencies on that proposed witness list you have Catherine Frazee as chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I presume you really want the chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to come before us, not Catherine Frazee.
Clerk of the Committee: That's correct. We bring the --
Mr Curling: Because Catherine Frazee would be no longer by the time --
Clerk of the Committee: Yes. When the committee chose that list at the time, we had to address the letter to someone.
Mr Curling: Yes, but in the meantime, though -- yes, we would have the chair of the Workers' Compensation Board.
Clerk of the Committee: Yes, that is correct.
Mr Curling: I think she'll be there then. I think she's being put before the standing committee on government agencies now to be approved, hopefully.
Mr Mammoliti: One of my concerns with the Ombudsman's office is the internal dealings and goings on within that office. I'd like to again talk a little bit about appropriate witnesses to let us know what's going on in the Ombudsman's office. I don't see a list of individuals who work in that office and I certainly would like to do whatever we can to get a couple -- two or three, however many it would take -- to give us an indication of what's going on in the Ombudsman's office. Those complaints are legitimate and I certainly would like to deal with that.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mammoliti. Although I think your comments and ideas are very good, I would ask that you hold them off until we are under the review and possibly hold them till the end, if you wouldn't mind.
Mr Owens: I think your comments address my concern, but I think in light of the volatility of our relationship with the Ombudsman's office, again I would suggest they would view this as a provocative act rather than as a consultative act. Until we work some magic around the escalating of this problem that seems to have appeared in the media this morning, we should just hold off, but keep Mr Mammoliti's concerns listed. Once we enlist the cooperation of the Ombudsman's office, then we can take a look at how we can accommodate those wishes.
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I would just like to put this out. It's what I would feel might be helpful as a point of clarification. It's my understanding that the mandate of this committee in these two weeks in the summer, and also as we're going to continue our work in the sessional days of the fall, is a review of the legislation on the Ombudsman; it's not a review of the office per se or of this specific operation, but they were looking at the legislation.
It's my understanding that the legislation was first introduced and passed in this province in 1975. Therefore, in that regard it's fairly old legislation and as legislators it's, I think, our mandate always to make sure that we recommend to the government of the day to bring the legislation up to date. We, today, do not even anticipate what possible changes, if any, might be made in our recommendations to government as to changes. I just want to make it clear that we're not looking at the particular office right now and how that office operates, but what we want to do is to make sure that the Ombudsman Act of the province of Ontario reflects the realities of the 1990s.
The Chair: For your benefit, Mr Ramsay, and for the other members' benefit, I will read the terms of reference that were unanimously supported by this committee:
"That the standing committee on the Ombudsman undertake a comprehensive review of the Office of the Ombudsman which should include but not be limited to:
" -- An examination of all aspects of the Ombudsman Act.
" -- The scope of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
" -- The performance of the Office of the Ombudsman in the exercise of its powers and functions.
" -- The adequacy of the resources of the Office of the Ombudsman to perform its various functions.
" -- The relationship of the Office of the Ombudsman to other organizations involved in hearing complaints about government actions.
" -- The mandate of and role to be played by the standing committee on the Ombudsman;
"And that the committee hold hearings and consult as it deems appropriate and that it complete and report the results of its review by December 15, 1992."
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Here we are. We are sort of beating around the bush and wanting the Ombudsman people to show up here. Now, that's fine, I have no problem with that, but I think the one who isn't showing up obviously is the Ombudsman herself. I think we had, as you said, a subcommittee yesterday and we talked a bit about this and I understood at that time that there was some concern that she might write a report.
The report was already done yesterday, because here it is right here. Since we're here all together I think we'd better talk about this, because we're not interviewing people today. Let's cut the bull and get somewhere in what we're doing here. I've been on this committee now for two years and all we've done is go around in circles with the Ombudsman. She says in here that she's arm's length from the rest of us. If that's the case, then obviously she thinks she's a judge. I think that's what we're going to have this hearing all about: to find out where we really sit in the whole picture also.
Now we get this report. It's slapped right in our face and I'm really upset about that and I think we're going to have to talk about this report before we do anything else, because maybe our whole review is redundant. I'm not here to waste ratepayers' time and money and my time to find out and get a report sent to us like this. I think this is a kick in our face and I want some concerns and some of the other people to talk about this. I am upset with this. Where do we go from here?
What I see this trying to do is trying to make these hearings look like they're not worth anything. Just like Mr Ramsay said, though, we're not here to judge the Ombudsman; we're here to do a review of what's been going on. It hasn't been done for 17 years. Do we need a committee? If the Ombudsman's going to be at arm's length from the Legislature then maybe we don't need our committee, but we're here to find out all this.
To send out a report, spend the taxpayers' money -- now, I don't know how much it cost, but the reports in the paper said $25,000. I can imagine it's a lot more than that. The graphic artist probably cost $25,000 just for the cover of this. So let's cut to the bone and let's get to some of the real problems we're having here.
The Chair: That is something I was going to mention, that the special report by the Ombudsman was tabled yesterday afternoon. I would appreciate it if all members could take time to read it, review it and then I'm sure we will deal with it.
Mr Curling: Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Just one moment please, Mr Curling. Ms Haeck.
Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I'm just going to follow up on something that Mr Murdoch has raised. The cost of this is reputed to be something like $25,000. Is that the printing of this?
Mr Murdoch: That's what we heard in reading the paper, if you can believe the paper.
Ms Haeck: I guess the question I have, since something like this obviously didn't happen overnight, is that I would really like to have an idea of how the costs for this were approved or whether moneys were removed from the actual service side of the ledger to print this. I would have some concerns as to how this ended up happening without maybe going through the Board of Internal Economy of some other mechanisms for monitoring these kinds of costs. It does leave an awful lot of questions.
The Chair: Can we discuss this, Ms Haeck, once all the members have had the opportunity to read the report, please?
Ms Haeck: Absolutely. It doesn't require immediate response, but I just wanted to put my questions and concerns on the record.
Mr Murdoch: I know everybody hasn't read it. I haven't got through the whole thing. Sorry to jump in, Mark, but this is the crux of our whole meeting. This is the crux of this whole committee. We've been going on here, as I said, for two years since I've been elected and some of the other guys have been here and this is the crux of what's happened. Right in here -- I'm even appalled to say that the Ombudsman says that none of us has approached her. What are we supposed to do, go behind each other's back and say, "Well, I had this problem, that problem"? That's what we're trying to stop. So I think we should go through the thing clause-by-clause, as we call it, and look at it, because I think it's what is going to happen for the next two weeks. This thing has a lot to do with it.
Mr Curling: I think it is appropriate that we examine the report. I'm anxious to get to it. Just going back to the proposed witness list, I would like to add and to tell the clerk, yourself and the committee that I think the employment equity commissioner should be one of the persons to appear before us. Is it there? Employment equity commissioner?
Clerk of the Committee: Whatever the list is, is there. If it's not on the list, they were not invited.
1030
The Chair: We can include them, Mr Curling.
Clerk of the Committee: For next September, if you wish, yes.
Mr Mammoliti: Somewhere along the line we lost track of what I was talking about in terms of witnesses and the agenda. I'm very persistent and I'm going to continue being persistent in this particular case, because I'd like to talk to some of the people who work in the Ombudsman's office, and this is the forum that I'd like to do it in.
I'd like to get an indication from the committee as to what you want to do with this, because if not I'm just going to continue putting motion after motion on this case.
Interjection.
Mr Mammoliti: No, what was said was, "We'll talk about it later." I'd like an indication today of when this could happen. If it's going to happen in September, that's fine, but I still would like a separate invitation to go out to everybody who works in the Ombudsman's office to let them know that we're looking for witnesses to answer questions in terms of any problems that exist in the Ombudsman's office and that this is the forum to answer the questions. It's been done before in committee and I'd like to see it done again, please.
Maybe that should be in the form of a motion, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Are you putting the motion forward, Mr Mammoliti?
Mr Mammoliti: Yes, Mr Chair, that would be my motion.
The Chair: Can you read that out again, please?
Mr Mammoliti: That the committee send it out to all staff in the Ombudsman's office to let them know of the review and investigation and to invite them to this committee to answer any of our questions in reference to the goings-on in the Ombudsman's office.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mammoliti.
We have a motion by Mr Mammoliti to invite all staff and office people of the Ombudsman's office --
Mr Mammoliti: Not all; the ones who are interested, Mr Chair.
The Chair: -- ones who are interested, to appear before us as witnesses. Can I have comments or questions, please?
Mr Ramsay: I would like to comment about this. As one of the members of this committee I'm equally concerned about the Office of the Ombudsman and how it works, and I'd certainly defend for the Ombudsman and for the province of Ontario the idea that the Ombudsman's office has to be independent of government and at arm's length.
Unfortunately, in the last little while, as evidenced by today's press clippings, it is now public that there have been some disagreements between this committee representing the Legislature of Ontario and the Ombudsman's office, and that's really unfortunate.
I think it should be the role of this committee to try to heal those wounds. We want to work cooperatively with the Ombudsman, because the Ombudsman's role in Ontario is very important. In fact I'm sure most of my colleagues do as I do: refer cases that we are frustrated with to the Ombudsman's office.
I support the Ombudsman's office and look upon it as assistance to the work I do in my constituency. So I certainly am a great supporter of that. I'm very concerned that this motion would be perceived as a provocative act, if you will, almost an attack upon the Office of the Ombudsman, and I do not feel that it's conducive to that healing process that I think needs to happen right now.
We've had our annual review, we've made comments on last year's performance of the Office of the Ombudsman. My sense now is that we're moving on to the future. We want to make sure that the Office of the Ombudsman for the province of Ontario is the best in the world. We think we can probably recommend some improvements to make it so. We have a good Ombudsman, an excellent Ombudsman, today in Ontario and a well functioning office -- not to say, like anything we do, that we cannot make improvements, but I just am very concerned that this would be perceived as a provocative act. I would be voting against this motion.
The Chair: Any further comments or questions?
Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I couldn't agree more with my colleague David across the way. I feel that would be considered a provocative act. It would be like subpoenaing witnesses to come before this committee. I too will not be supporting this motion.
The Chair: Any further comments or questions?
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): I guess if I was pushed to the limit I'd support my colleague's motion that's before us; however, I would do it reluctantly and I would issue a caution. I agree that in this particular case the Office of the Ombudsman has to be beyond reproach and it has to be something separate and apart from government.
I would also agree -- and I apologize because this is my first meeting and I don't have as much experience with the workings of this committee and with the office as many of you around this table -- that sidestepping the process and reaching into that agency in this way and summoning people to appear before this committee would in many ways disrupt a relationship that this office should have with government and would disrupt the workings of the office directly. I think we have to tread softly.
I regret some of the comments that I've heard around this table as well in terms of accountability, because I believe that every government agency, board, commission, and every department of government should in some way be held accountable to the elected officers of the government. If this committee hasn't been able to work out a process whereby a mechanism is developed to in some way hold the Office of the Ombudsman accountable -- essentially, I guess what I'm saying is for the Office of the Ombudsman to provide to the members of this committee and the members of the Legislature some information on the workings of the office and reassurances that the office is working well -- then that in some ways makes me nervous.
So I would urge my colleague to take back the motion, because I don't think that it's a worthwhile motion at this time. I suspect it may be at some point down the road. If the situation deteriorates, then maybe it at that time would be an appropriate motion, but I would try other venues at this time.
Mr Curling: Over the last two years I've served on this committee, and I think the committee has made efforts in order to understand the process and the accountability of the Ombudsman. I feel that there is resistance or lack of understanding, let's say, on both sides, saying it rather diplomatically. I feel that we as a committee have not been successful in impressing upon the Ombudsman that there's an accountability process, and we, as elected individuals who are accountable to the people, have not been able to get a full understanding of this process.
I feel the motion that was put forward is not a motion that I can support either. I don't think we're there to investigate the Ombudsman herself. By using her staff she's accountable to the Legislature, to the Speaker. This committee and legislation has stated we represent the Speaker in that sense, and all the reports come here. I feel that a better approach would be to call the Speaker here and get a full understanding of how this process works, because it seems to me that somehow we're just not getting through to the Ombudsman. I'm not saying that from my point of view; it's from her report, which said that she has not got an understanding, she's not able to convince us in some respect. So I cannot support that motion. I wouldn't like to go in that direction. I'd like to go in the direction where we have a session, whether you want to call a closed session or not, with the Speaker and the Ombudsman meeting.
The Chair: Mr Curling, for your information the Speaker is appearing before us at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
Mr Curling: Yes, I know, but I was saying almost as an urgency, an immediacy. I don't know if he's coming in the next session. I think we can hardly proceed, you know.
Mr Murdoch: I think it's my understanding that she has been asked to appear here --
The Chair: Yes, she has.
Mr Murdoch: -- and she has refused to this date. So I think Mr Mammoliti's motion has some merit. I would rather see it tabled at this time also, but if I were pressed to the point I think I would support it just on the grounds that I think we've tried. I know everybody around here keeps saying, "We don't want to be adversarial," and things like this, but we've tried. We've had the Ombudsman here to see us and we've talked to her about these things.
I totally agree that her decisions can't be tampered with, but is there not a process that somebody's accountable to somebody, and is this committee not set up to see that her office is accountable to the Legislature? I thought that's why we're here and that this is what we were going to try to find out.
There comes a point, though, that you can only be so nice for so long and I think we're almost getting to that point. I think that's why George's motion is coming. It's from frustration. I would rather see it tabled at this time, but if push comes to shove, I would support it because I think somewhere along the line we're going to have to take the initiative and get something going here.
1040
Mr Mammoliti: Thank you, Mr Murdoch.
Mr Murdoch: We've been trying. I've been here since this committee started and, boy, we're really getting frustrated, and with this report coming out, it frustrates even worse. I think we're going to have to start taking the bull by the horns soon and do something. We can talk around here all we want and be nice and say they are her decisions and this kind of stuff, but somewhere along the line we're going to have to start getting a little tougher and do something.
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, just a point of clarification for our research: As Mr Mammoliti's motion stated, do you want to invite the staff or do you want to get clarification from the Ombudsman on the special report?
Mr Murdoch: No, I was talking about Mr Mammoliti's motion. I just said I would prefer to see it tabled at this point, at least until we go over this report. As I said, at some time we may have to get tough here and I think that's what his motion is doing. As I said, if it's pushed to a vote, I'll vote for it.
Mr Mammoliti: In speaking directly to some of the staff members who at this particular time didn't want to be mentioned -- let's be perfectly honest and frank with you -- there are some problems in the office and I want some questions answered. As Mr Murdoch says, the Ombudsman doesn't want to come in front of us. She claims she doesn't have to. How are my questions going to be answered in terms of what's happening in that office if there isn't anybody here to answer those questions?
I look at the agenda and I don't see anybody directly on staff who's going to be in front of us, somebody who's working beneath the Ombudsman, somebody who works on staff, perhaps one or more, to answer some of those questions. I cannot properly, and I feel this way, carry out my duties as a member of this committee if my questions aren't answered. That's the reason for the motion. The reason for the motion is to answer some questions.
It's not to say that my colleagues are not right, and I understand what they're saying in terms of diplomacy and in terms of all of that, but I agree with Mr Murdoch, my colleague across, that we have tried for almost two years to get through. I'm frustrated. I'd like to hear from the people who have been complaining, frankly, and I'd like to give them the opportunity to come in front of this committee. That's the reason for the motion. If we don't give them that opportunity, then are questions answered and is this whole process worthwhile?
If the answer is no to my motion, then I would go back to my colleague Mr Murdoch again and his question in terms of wasting the ratepayers' money. I'd like some questions answered and I'd like to ask the people who work there, the people who have the complaints, because right now there are a lot of complaints coming out of that office, not only from the people who have a complaint with government, but the people who work for government are complaining as well. I'd like to ask them some questions.
Mr Duignan: Very briefly, I think we've gone around this question long enough and I would like to get on with the briefing by legal counsel to this committee. Therefore, I'm going to call the question.
Mr Owens: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I believe I heard Mr Murdoch move a motion of referral.
Mr Murdoch: No. To clarify that, I prefer it to be tabled, but I think it's George's motion and I'll leave it up to him.
Mr Owens: So it's an interpretation problem.
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Chair: I don't believe you can speak to a motion and then call the question on the motion afterwards.
Interjections.
Mr Duignan: The question is called.
The Chair: All those in favour of Mr Mammoliti's motion, please show? All those opposed please show?
Motion negatived.
Mr Owens: As an end note to this discussion, I think Mr Mammoliti's point should not be lost, that there may be some difficulties in the office. I'm a little bit nervous about having staff come in and --
Mr Curling: Are we going to debate the motion again? It's all been done.
Mr Owens: Pardon me?
Mr Curling: It's been done. It's over.
Mr Owens: It is in terms of Mr Mammoliti's concerns that there should be some method for staff to express their concerns.
The Chair: If Mr Mammoliti wishes, Mr Mammoliti can forward that to the subcommittee to review.
Mr Mammoliti: On a point of clarification, Mr Chair: If some staff members come forward at this point and tell the Chair and the clerk's office that they would like to appear, will we get a chance to talk about this, because I would certainly be one to recommend that they do. I hope they do get put on the list if they choose to come forward.
The Chair: The subcommittee would review that request, obviously.
Going on with our agenda, this morning we have a briefing by our legal counsel, Paul Murray. I would ask that you leave your comments and questions till Mr Murray is done. Mr Murray, when you feel comfortable, you can have the floor. Please feel free to take as much time as you need.
Mr Paul Murray: I think all the members have been provided with a copy of some briefing notes. If you could turn to those now, it would probably be easier to follow along with those. I'm going to actually stay fairly close to this and maybe add a few comments as I go through them.
This is what they look like. If anyone happens not to have them, I have two extra copies of them here.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Christel Haeck): Perhaps all members have their briefing notes, as requested by Mr Murray. If anyone needs any additional briefing notes, Franco or Mr Murray can accommodate. Paul, we'll turn it over to you.
Mr Murray: As I said, I'll stay fairly close to these. If you turn to the second page, not the covering page, I'm going to go through pages 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Basically, the briefing notes cover four different subjects. The first is a brief description of the purpose of the review, which we've heard a bit about because we've had the terms of reference read out today.
Then there's some background on the historical context of this review, tracing some of the developments since the act was first enacted in 1975.
Then there is a short description of the manner in which the hearings have been organized and who has been invited.
Then on pages 4 and 5, there's a summary of issues under review, and this list of issues are issues that have been raised over the course of the last 17 years by different ombudsmen and different individuals and agencies which have been involved in commenting on the Ombudsman Act.
I'll go back and start at the beginning with the purpose of the review. As I indicated, the terms of reference have been read out, but just briefly to restate them, the purpose of this review is to assess how effective the Ombudsman Act and the Office of the Ombudsman are in achieving the objectives set for them. It's to receive, consider and respond to recommendations made concerning the need to make changes to the act and to the operations of the office, with the overall objective of ensuring that the function of addressing unfairness in government administration, which is entrusted to the Office of the Ombudsman, is performed in an effective and efficient manner.
1050
The background and history which provides the context for this review: There have been a number of important developments over the last 17 years. The act was first enacted in 1975. It hasn't been amended since 1975, although there have been a number of recommendations by the different ombudsmen who have held the office, and by the different standing committees, as well as others.
The initial intention for the first Ombudsman, who was Arthur Maloney, was to provide a blueprint for the Office of the Ombudsman after the first year of operation. This was intended to be a very detailed blueprint as to how the service delivery would be handled, whether there were any inadequacies or problems with the Ombudsman Act: a very broad review.
This Blueprint for the Office of the Ombudsman, under this title, was completed in 1979, towards the end of Arthur Maloney's tenure as the Ombudsman, and is a very lengthy, 400-page review of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman Act, and included a very long list of amendments to the act, none of which, to this point, has been implemented, and a number which subsequent ombudsmen have commented on. This blueprint, as well as other recommendations after that, form the basis of the issues I'm going to go through later, once the committee has invited comments from the public.
As I indicated, successive ombudsmen have pressed for amendments to the act on a range of issues related to the powers and procedures of the Ombudsman, and have constantly been supported by the standing committee in making these recommendations. This is discussed in the committee's 19th report released earlier this spring.
In 1986, the Ombudsman at that time, Dr Hill, specifically proposed that the Ombudsman's jurisdiction be expanded to include the children's aid societies, public hospitals and the Ontario new home warranty program. The previous standing committee held hearings on that and recommended against expansion. This committee has reviewed that. In the Ombudsman's most recent report, she has a section in which a number of possible areas for expansion of jurisdiction are included.
Mr Murdoch: Which report is that?
Mr Murray: The Ombudsman's annual report.
Mr Murdoch: Not the special one.
Mr Murray: Not the special report.
Mr Murdoch: I just wanted to make sure.
Mr Murray: Yes, sorry; it's the Ombudsman's most recent annual report, which was released in the spring. In the Ombudsman's most recent annual report, there are six or seven different areas that are raised as areas possibly for expansion of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, including the areas we've just mentioned, as well as the actions and decisions of municipalities, the actions and decisions of school boards, as well as others.
In September 1989, there was a review of Ontario's regulatory agencies undertaken by Robert Macaulay. This was a review of the manner in which administrative tribunals and government agencies generally operate. Included in this report, because of the Ombudsman's role in reviewing the actions and decisions of government agencies, is a section on the appropriate role of the Ombudsman in reviewing agencies and tribunals.
A number of recommendations are made in the Macaulay report. In particular, the report notes the need for this committee to establish rules to govern how the Ombudsman is to carry out her or his powers in reviewing government agencies. Those recommendations have not yet been considered by a legislative committee, and those are some of the issues we're hoping to receive comments from the invited public on.
In November 1989 the Ontario government of the time introduced Bill 80, An Act to amend the Ombudsman Act and the Child and Family Services Act, 1984. This bill, Bill 80, included a long list of amendments, some of which would have altered the Ombudsman's jurisdiction by narrowing it, and a number of other amendments which would have related to her power to make and submit reports to the Legislature, as well as other issues. It addressed, at least in a number of the amendments, a number of concerns that had been voiced by different ombudsmen over the previous 14 years. Some of the amendments, to be clear, weren't supported by the Ombudsman of the day, and there was some discussion about that. In any event, this bill, which might have addressed some of the concerns which had arisen over the previous 14 years, did not proceed past first reading, so the amendments that had been pursued were not implemented.
Generally speaking, in the last 17 years much has changed since the Ombudsman Act was first enacted. There are a host of new government agencies subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has altered in a number of ways the manner in which the public's rights are protected, and there has been a considerable growth in government, all of which, this committee has decided in its 19th report, create a need to explore whether these place new demands on the Office of the Ombudsman and whether the Ombudsman's office has the ability at present to adequately respond to these new demands.
This review, as seen by the committee in its 19th report, will provide a forum for the public to comment on achievements of the Office of the Ombudsman and to make recommendations on how the Ombudsman's functions can more effectively be performed. In responding to these comments and developments the committee's object will be to bring the Ombudsman Act up to date and to ensure that the Ombudsman has the powers and fulfils the functions appropriate to today.
So that's the historical context. All of those developments have given rise to a number of outstanding issues in terms of the Ombudsman Act and the Ombudsman's powers and procedures which, in the final part I'm going to brief you on, are the issues that we have set out and which we have sent, in the form of questions, to witnesses and invited public comment on.
Just before I get to that, in terms of the organization of the hearings, which some of the members may not be as familiar with as others, the committee made a recommendation in its report, released on May 28, that this review be conducted. On July 23 the Legislature passed a motion authorizing the committee to conduct these hearings. Invitations were mailed during the week of July 27, 1992. As you know, there are only two weeks of hearings, starting today. We've indicated to witnesses that because of the short period of notice because of the circumstances surrounding the legislative schedule earlier this spring we will continue to arrange to hear further from witnesses in the fall as necessary and we'll continue to receive written submissions after the completion of these two weeks of hearings.
The committee's expressed hope is to hear from a range of officials and individuals about their experiences in dealing with the office over the past 17 years. There has been a range of invitations sent out to obtain comment from the public. There has been a wide public advertisement of the committee's hearings inviting participation from the public. As well, the committee has invited the Ombudsman to appear before the committee and to provide her views on the need for improvements to the act and to the Office of the Ombudsman. Former ombudsmen have been invited. Expert witnesses, professors who have written in this area, have been invited. The chairs of government boards and agencies frequently reviewed by the Ombudsman have been asked to prepare any comments they might have, as well as other ministries and government agencies.
In addition, we have attempted to identify and invite organizations potentially affected by the expansion of the Ombudsman's office in terms of the areas mentioned in her most recent annual report. As well, a number of groups have been invited to speak concerning the accessibility of the Ombudsman's services to the broad public. As well, the committee has contacted other provincial ombudsmen asking for their comments on some of the issues under consideration.
1100
To get into some of the issues for witnesses -- just in terms of the invitations to witnesses -- they have been given a list of questions that the committee prepared, which relates to a number of issues that have been raised over the course of the past 17 years as requiring attention, issues raised by previous ombudsmen and different reviews that have been undertaken. I'll just go through these fairly briefly. It's pages 4 and 5 of your briefing notes. I've arranged these issues under some general headings, which there is no particular magic in. Just at the beginning, some general introductory issues are just to identify what the appropriate role and function of the office are in light of developments over the past 17 years. In that sense, this is a very comprehensive review.
There's also the general question that has arisen as to the systemic reviews of agencies. For example, the Ombudsman recently completed a review of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, which she discusses in her most recent annual report. An issue to be considered is whether these reviews should be conducted by the Ombudsman, what role they should play in the work of the Ombudsman and what procedure should be followed. Clearly it's a newer area for the Ombudsman to be getting into, although previous ombudsmen have gotten into these areas and a number of ombudsmen in other provinces have.
Another issue which has been raised by the Ombudsman in the most recent annual report is whether the title of Ombudsman should be changed so that it is gender-neutral both in meaning and in connotation, and what an appropriate title might be.
Under expansion of jurisdiction, there are a number of issues. Some of the issues to consider are whether to include some of the governmental organizations that I've mentioned that are not presently covered by the act: municipalities, children's aid societies, public hospitals, the Ontario New Home Warranty Program, boards of education, municipally administered social assistance and the Law Society of Upper Canada.
As well, the committee needs to consider whether any clarification of the Ombudsman's current jurisdiction is needed because there have been issues over the past 17 years as to whether certain agencies were within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction.
As well, the Ombudsman has raised, in the most recent report, whether the issue of alternative methods of providing ombudsmen's services -- for example, the use of specialized ombudsmen -- should be considered.
There are a number of issues that have been raised over the years concerning the complaints review process, the Ombudsman's investigation and reporting concerning cases. These issues include whether the Ombudsman's existing investigative powers and procedures are adequate for the job to be performed, whether to allow the Ombudsman to comment publicly on a particular case when it is in the public interest and whether to require the Ombudsman to conduct educational programs to inform members of the public of the Ombudsman's functions.
As well, the question of the extent to which the Ombudsman should involve herself or himself in facilitating the resolution of a complaint should be considered, and the extent to which the Ombudsman should continue to be involved in cases once he or she has reported to the Legislature is an issue on which we've invited comment.
The next area we've invited comment on are the roles of the assembly and the committee, the accountability mechanisms and other functions, which clearly, as in discussion earlier today, are issues that have presented questions over the course of the past 17 years. These issues include whether there are any areas in which the committee should establish rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman, whether the procedures followed by the committee in reviewing recommendation-denied cases are adequate, whether the committee should continue to receive and review complaints from individuals concerning the Ombudsman's handling of their complaints, whether the procedures in place to review the Ombudsman's finances are adequate, and what information should be conveyed in the Ombudsman's annual reports to the Legislature.
The final topic on which we've invited comment is the general performance of the Office of the Ombudsman over the past 17 years. These include questions about public satisfaction with the service provided, the awareness and accessibility of the services, the effectiveness of the complaints review process, developments in the size and nature of the workload since 1975 and the adequacy and management of resources. These are all issues that relate to concerns that have been raised over the past 17 years and are important, in the committee's view, to ensuring that the Ombudsman's function is performed in an effective and efficient manner and on which witnesses have been invited to comment.
That completes my briefing, unless there are questions on the briefing.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Murray. Any comments or questions on the brief?
Mr Ramsay: I'd just like to ask Mr Murray: The issues that he has outlined for us this morning, would that be a fair summary of recommendations that have come down over time from the Maloney blueprint, the Macaulay report and the Bill 80 recommendations for amendments?
Mr Murray: Yes, the issues that I've just gone through are actually a bit of a condensed summary of those recommendations. It doesn't include all of the specific ones. The list of questions sent out to witnesses in which we've invited comments is more extensive and a more complete summary of the recommendations which have been made over the course of those years in those reports.
Mr Duignan: Just going back to page 2, I was wondering if you could make available to the members of the committee Bill 80 from 1989 and a copy of the September 1989 review and the recommendations. I'm wondering, could they be made available to the committee?
Mr Murray: Yes, they can.
Mr Murdoch: This did say "confidential" on here. Now it isn't any more, I assume?
Interjection: We've just been talking about the document.
Mr Murdoch: I know. We just want to make sure we don't cause any problems, but I think --
Mr Owens: It's just gone across TVO.
Mr Murdoch: Maybe we should send a copy of this to the Ombudsman now.
Mr Curling: Slip it under her door.
Mr Murdoch: Yes, slip it under her door at 9 o'clock.
It says right in here, are we as a committee interfering with the Ombudsman's independence and stuff. We're going to address all this. As I say, I'm still upset that we're being treated the way we are by that office, and again no one's ever tried to say that we want to get into her decisions. I think we've stressed that so many times, that this is all going to be well and done, but is it going to mean anything?
I don't know where we'd find that out, either. Can anybody answer me that? Where are we going to go? We're going to spend a lot of money here on this committee to do this. We're not going to do it in two weeks, that's obvious, because of the list of people whom we're going to try to talk to, so it's going to go on when we come back. I think we've got to find out, are we doing this all for naught?
Mr Murray: Just in terms of the two points, I guess, you raised, one that we only have two weeks now, but as I tried to indicate in the briefing note, the committee has made it clear to witnesses in inviting them that there's flexibility on the part of the committee and it invites them, if there's not sufficient time now, to make a request to appear before the committee in the fall and to prepare written submissions at any point.
Certainly it's up to the committee as to how long it wants to extend the process of hearing from the public. In terms of reminding you, it has been 17 years, so in some senses clearly there's no rush to get this done in two weeks and the committee's made it clear to the public we've invited that that's not the case.
In terms of the issue as to what will happen with the committee's report: As you know, this is a review that the committee is undertaking and will report to the Legislature on, and then of course it's up to the Legislature as to how to act on any recommendations the committee may make in terms of changes to the act.
The Chair: Just to clarify that for you, Mr Murdoch, we have a motion and been ordered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to do a review and to report back to the assembly.
1110
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chair, forgive me for being so naïve, I guess, but I certainly would like to know how much it costs to run the Ombudsman's office. At this point I'd request that information, as well as the number of individuals who work in the Ombudsman's office, the classifications, and the hourly wage, if that, or salaries.
I'm going to agree again with Mr Murdoch and say that I'm frustrated as well by knowing that the Ombudsman doesn't want to come and talk to us. I'd like to ask whether or not we can subpoena somebody to come and talk to us, Mr Chair, because I certainly would have some questions for the Ombudsman in this case. If the answer's yes, I think you can assume what I'm going to say next.
The Chair: Just before I turn that over to legal counsel, there is such a warrant: It's called a Speaker's warrant.
Mr Mammoliti: Right on. Okay.
The Chair: Now I will turn the chair over to Mr Murray to answer Mr Mammoliti's question about expenditures.
Mr Murray: One of the issues you've raised is wages that are paid to the individuals and whatever interest there may be in that. Just to clarify so you're aware, the Ombudsman Act provides, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, that the Ombudsman may employ such employees as are considered necessary and may determine their salary and remuneration and terms and conditions of employment. The act does make it clear that, certainly in terms of the day-to-day operations, day-to-day decisions of the Ombudsman's office, the Ombudsman is independent in making those decisions. I think the committee's interest would be in more general questions as to the overall performance of the functions of the Ombudsman.
Mr Mammoliti: With all due respect --
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, please.
Mr Mammoliti: I'm sorry, Mr Chair. We're taking blows in the media telling us it's costing us $25,000 to do this review. If I do a review, I like to be thorough; I like to know my information, and that's why I'm asking for this information. I'd like to know how much it costs to run the Ombudsman's office, how many people are employed there and what their functions are, as well as their wage.
The Chair: If you look at the expenditures for the 1991-92 fiscal year, you will get that information, but I'm sure we can ask the clerk to get that.
Mr Mammoliti: They're not on the sheet, Mr Chair.
The Chair: I'm sure we can get the clerk to issue that to every member, but if you look at the bottom of the fiscal year, total expenditures are $9,623,852.
Mr Mammoliti: Can I get that on a piece of paper?
The Chair: Yes, you can. I will ask the clerk to do that.
Mr Murdoch: On the subpoena and things like that, we talked about that in the subcommittee yesterday. We looked at that, Mr Mammoliti, and we felt that maybe we're a little above that in this committee. Mr Ramsay dictated a very nice letter to be drawn up and sent to her, and maybe we should stick to that, if we could. I don't know whether that's been done yet; maybe it's redundant because of the report, I don't know.
I am still upset because of this, but I think the Ombudsman looks worse if she doesn't show up here, and for us to force her to come I think would be wrong. If she doesn't want to come, fine. Just as somebody said today, it's nice that we're in open session; we're not trying to hide anything. If somebody doesn't show up here, I don't know if they're trying to hide something or whatever. I don't know why somebody wouldn't show up here when it's a committee to investigate. It's a 17-year investigation; I mean, nothing's been done for 17 years. I think something has to be done to look at it.
So I hope we'll continue with that letter Mr Ramsay helped us dictate yesterday. Is that not possible?
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, just for a point of clarification, if you'll allow me, the Ombudsman was invited and I will read the letter out for all members.
Mr Murdoch: But also, remember, we were going to send a nice letter back.
The Chair: I will refer to that when I'm done. The letter's dated July 27, 1992, addressed to Roberta L. Jamieson, Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman, 125 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2C7.
"Dear Ms Jamieson:
"Re review of the Office of the Ombudsman.
"In your letter of July 22, 1992, you comment that you have not yet received a reply to your request of June 25, 1992, to appear before the standing committee, and that this meeting must be held before you will consider providing the information that we requested in our letter to you of July 21, 1992.
"With respect to your request to appear before the committee, we take this opportunity to inform you that on July 23, 1992, the Legislature passed a motion which authorizes the committee to hold hearings this August for the purpose of conducting its review of the Office of the Ombudsman. We believe that this would be an appropriate opportunity for you to raise your concerns with the committee's recommendations, along with other comments and suggestions concerning the need for changes to the Ombudsman Act and to your office's operations. We will shortly be forwarding to you a list of issues on which the committee hopes to receive comments. We will then be meeting to arrange a schedule for witnesses to appear.
"The committee is extremely concerned with your refusal to comply with its recommendations and believes the discussion you suggest may be useful. However, in order for such a meeting to be productive we would ask that you provide a more detailed explanation as to your reasons for choosing not to implement the committee's recommendations. In this respect, we note that you have made a general assertion that compliance with the recommendations would represent an abdication of your responsibility to exercise your discretion independently, but have not indicated why this is the case for each of the various recommendations the committee has made. Some explanation of your concerns with respect to each of the recommendations would be helpful in advance of the meeting.
"While we look forward to meeting with you, we do not agree, as you suggest, that this meeting must be held before the information which we requested in our letter to you of July 21, 1992, is provided. We would note that the information requested relates to the matters which are the subject of the committee's hearings, and it is therefore information which the committee is authorized to send for, since the committee is authorized to send for such persons, papers and things as it considers necessary for its proceedings or deliberations. Therefore, unless you believe that you do not have the power or responsibility to provide the information, we see no reason why the provisions of this information should be delayed.
"We therefore repeat our request for the information. We would also ask that if you do take the position not to provide the information, please indicate to us why you believe that you do not have the power or responsibility to do so.
"Should you have any questions concerning the above, please do not hesitate to call.
"Yours truly, Mark Morrow, MPP."
That is the letter asking her to appear before us. I just read that in for information, Mr Murdoch. The subcommittee should be meeting again at a later date this week to look at Mr Ramsay's idea of a letter to the Ombudsman.
Any further comments or questions?
Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I have been looking in the standing orders. I'm interested in the terms of reference of this committee and whether there has been some expanded interpretation of them and how that fits in to our request of the Ombudsman. I understand what the concerns are; they have been outlined very well by Mr Murray and we have discussed them previously. But when I look at the standing orders, I don't see a description of what our terms of reference are that would in fact allow us or motivate us -- I think "allow" is the word I want -- to delve into this to the depth we want to. I'm wanting to know if there exists somewhere some greater or wider description of what our terms of reference are. Orders of reference, I'm sorry.
The Chair: Ms Akande, we are not conducting this review under standing orders. We are conducting this review under special orders and motions dated July 23, 1992, and passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
1120
Ms Akande: However, can I just clarify this for myself? The questions we asked, the information we consistently requested, were as a part of the standing committee, and that was under the terms of reference of the committee. It was our dissatisfaction with those responses, am I correct, that led us to that motion?
The Chair: Yes, you're correct.
Ms Akande: I'm still hoping that there exists somewhere some wider description of the terms of reference which would give us the support that we did in fact ask those questions within the parameters of our mandate, which then led us to do this.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Akande. Mr Perruzza.
Mr Perruzza: I was just going to refer briefly that there are figures available through other processes to -- I'm going to pass, Mr Chair.
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti.
Mr Mammoliti: Earlier I put in a motion that I wanted staff to come in front and answer some questions. I was told that perhaps we should talk to the person who is accountable for the goings-on in the Ombudsman's office, and now I find out that the person who is accountable doesn't want to come and talk to us. The reason I asked for the -- it's not called a subpoena, it's called something else.
The Chair: It's called a Speaker's warrant.
Mr Mammoliti: I need to know what's going on in that office. Inviting experts is one thing, but to just sit back and accept the fact that the person who is accountable doesn't want to come and talk to the committee to me is not acceptable. I'd like to do whatever I can to get these questions answered, so if that means that I have to put a motion on the floor, then I would, but I'd like to get some feedback before a motion is put on. I don't know how the rest of the people in this committee feel, but I certainly would like to get some questions answered by the people who are accountable.
The Chair: Can I just interrupt here for one moment? We are trying to deal with the brief Mr Murray gave us this morning. Is this in context of the --
Mr Mammoliti: Sure it is.
Mr Curling: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: Ms Akande asked a good procedural question and I think it should be answered. If I understood her correctly, she asked if we have exhausted the standing orders procedures before we move on to the next act, in other words, calling the Ombudsman here. I didn't get an answer to that. Have we exhausted the standing orders procedures on how we get the Ombudsman appearing before us?
The Chair: No we haven't, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: The other question she asked, then, is that if we're into the second phase and we've not exhausted the first phase -- was I understanding you correctly?
Ms Akande: That's a rather liberal interpretation, but then you are a Liberal, Alvin. But thank you. My question was also, do we have a wider interpretation of the orders of reference which would have allowed us to question the very thing which has provoked this investigation?
The Chair: The motion that was passed by the Legislative Assembly on July 23 allows us the wider aspects for the terms of reference.
Mr Curling: I would say yes, we have. In the last two years we have brought her before us and asked many questions to which we did not get satisfaction, and she said she would not proceed beyond that. The only way we could have done that now is to get an order in the Legislature to say, "If we get the Legislature's direction, will you do that?" That's what we did, isn't that so? That July motion is the one that was bringing her before us, but she has refused to come now.
Ms Akande: May I interject just because it relates directly --
The Chair: Interjections aren't allowed, Ms Akande.
Ms Akande: -- and it would be more efficiently discussed this way? What I am saying is that it may well be a part of the result of this exercise or some other one related to it that we more specifically define the orders of reference for this committee so that it will not only serve to inform the committee but will serve to inform the Ombudsman about the parameters of our jurisdiction.
The Chair: Can I allow the clerk to respond to that.
Clerk of the Committee: Mrs Akande, the standing orders specifically authorize us to review specific reports of the Ombudsman. However, the motion passed by the Legislature is broad and also is based on the fact that we made the recommendation in our annual report to specifically look at certain areas, and it is within that framework that we are reviewing.
Ms Akande: I understand.
Clerk of the Committee: To answer your second question regarding the process for a Speaker's warrant, the process, in general but not in this particular case, is that the clerk contacts the individual and requests the individual's appearance and it's followed through by a number of letters. That number of letters could be at the discretion of this particular committee.
If the individual refuses, we request again. If the individual refuses, that number must come to a decision of the committee. They must decide if it's appropriate to request a Speaker's warrant from the Speaker. They must be absolutely sure in their minds that there is no other way to follow that route. However, the second letter recommended by both Mr Ramsay and Mr Murdoch is along the process that the committee feels to go forward.
Ms Akande: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Murdoch, please.
Mr Murdoch: Just to get back to what Mrs Akande said, we exhausted everything we tried and we were at the point that we needed this review to really find out what our job was. We've had the Ombudsman here. We were told that she had powers. We don't know what they really are and we couldn't figure them out.
We asked, we felt anyway, just some simple things to be brought to our committee so that we could decide what was going on. Hopefully, this review does give us an expanded mandate or takes our whole mandate away from us and we're redundant. That's what it's about. It's hard to tell with what you have there whether this is right or not.
The other thing is, I know we're talking about, to get on to George's -- or Mr Mammoliti's --
Mr Mammoliti: That's okay, you can call me George.
Mr Murdoch: That's fine. Half the time these guys --
Mr Ramsay: He's been called worse.
Mr Murdoch: Yeah, I've been called worse, George.
About the Speaker's warrant, we're going to have the Speaker here this afternoon. Maybe we should discuss this with the Speaker to see how he feels about it too. I'm wondering if we're just jumping the gun a little bit. We can always do this at any time, but we are going to have the Speaker here and --
The Chair: Mr Murdoch, I think Mr Murray has a response for you.
Mr Murray: Actually it was a response to Ms Akande.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead.
Mr Murray: One of the questions you asked was whether or not one of the issues to be considered is changing the committee's standing orders. This committee's terms of reference state that one of the issues to be considered is the mandate of and role to be played by the standing committee on the Ombudsman.
We've expressly stated and we've asked for input from the public, we have asked a number of questions about what the appropriate role of the standing committee is to be. Depending on what response we get to those questions, we could then consider a recommendation re drafting or clarifying the existing standing orders.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Murray. Mr Ramsay, please.
Mr Ramsay: Mr Chairman, I think it's the view of everybody on this committee that we would want to have the assistance of the Ombudsman in helping us in this review.
When I look back in the correspondence, I know the Ombudsman has asked, in her letter to you, Mr Chair, dated June 25, 1992, that she wants to be permitted to appear before the committee to set out in full detail her position with respect to our report of her annual report and the goings-on of her office in the past year.
I would propose, in the context of our review, that is certainly a legitimate starting place for us to proceed, and if we want to have a good working relationship with the Ombudsman and want to have her assistance in doing this, because we all want to look at how we can improve the act, I suggest that we invite the Ombudsman -- if she can make it within the next two weeks, that would be helpful, but if not, when we return to session -- to come before us to set out, as she has requested, her reasons why she disagrees with the report we made, the 19th report of this committee. I'd like to invite her to come before us and talk about that.
The Chair: Just before, Mr Ramsay, I ask you if that's a motion, the reason the subcommittee was called yesterday morning was to bring the Ombudsman forward to let her know that we would appreciate that she appear before us for a briefing, and she did not respond to the subcommittee. Now would you want to put that forward as a motion?
Mr Ramsay: I would like to, yes.
The Chair: Mr Ramsay moves that we ask again the Ombudsman to appear before us. Any comments or questions on the motion?
Mr Owens: Just in terms of Mr Ramsay's motion, I think it's a good one. I would ask him, however, if it would not be better if the subcommittee met this afternoon prior to session. Yesterday we all arrived expecting the Ombudsman to be there and we've really had no time to put our minds to how we can broach some kind of a diplomatic solution and how we can encourage the Ombudsman to in fact appear. I fully agree with Mr Ramsay, but I wonder if it would not be better if a subcommittee meeting were held and our minds were put to that issue.
The Chair: Can I take that as an amendment to Mr Ramsay's motion?
Mr Owens: It's a friendly suggestion.
Mr Ramsay: I take it as a friendly suggestion, Mr Chair, and would accept that.
The Chair: All three parties are agreeable? Agreed. Okay, thank you. So the subcommittee will meet at, say, 1:45?
Mr Ramsay: Or as soon as we finish this morning. How about that?
Clerk of the Committee: We can meet as soon as we finish.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza moves that the committee adjourn.
Mr Ramsay: Since it looks like we'll be adjourning momentarily, I would suggest that the clerk proceed in the subcommittee after adjournment of the committee.
The Chair: That's fine, Mr Ramsay. Mr Mammoliti?
Mr Mammoliti: I just wanted to ask a question, Mr Chair, before we split.
Mr Perruzza: Excuse me, Mr Mammoliti, there's a motion on the floor to adjourn.
Mr Mammoliti: Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we had dealt with it.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza put a motion on the floor to adjourn. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favour? All those opposed?
Mr Owens: What was the question?
The Chair: There was a motion to adjourn put on the floor by Mr Perruzza.
Mr Mammoliti: A motion to adjourn?
The Chair: Yes. It's a non-debatable motion. All those in favour again, please show. All those opposed?
Motion agreed to.
The Chair: We are adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon.
The committee recessed at 1133.
AFTERNOON SITTING
The committee resumed at 1409.
ROBERT GATEMAN
The Chair: I'd like to call the standing committee on the Ombudsman to order. Our first person presenting this afternoon is Mr Gateman.
Mr Gateman, you have a half-hour for your presentation. I would appreciate it if you would leave some time at the end of your presentation so that the members here can ask you some questions or make some comments. Please feel comfortable and begin when you want. Would you please read your name into the record to help our official recordings.
Mr Robert Gateman: I thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is Robert Gateman. First of all, let me say it's a pleasure to appear before the committee. I would like to say at the outset that my purpose is not to come here before this committee to Ombudsman-bash. I hope that I will be proffering some constructive suggestions, rather than simply naming names and complaining about a particular case.
I would also like to indicate to this committee that I have advised the Ombudsman of my basic submission before this committee, so this is not an attempt to sort of have a review of a particular case.
I would also like to inform the committee of this particular caveat, that I'm going to be referring to a particular case. The case is an ongoing case, so I'm going to attempt not to name names in the case and make every effort to extract the main element from this particular case. I can also indicate to the committee that the right of confidentiality has been waived in this case so that some of the specifics can come before this committee.
For your information, I am a professor of law and economics and a lawyer in three provinces. I will be discussing a particular complainant. That's as far as I'm going to get into the details of this case.
The issue I'm bringing before the committee is: How should the Ombudsman treat proposals that come from a government organization while an investigation is ongoing? Let me just repeat my issue. The issue is: If a governmental organization gives a proposal, or in this case gives a series of ongoing proposals to the Ombudsman, how is the Ombudsman supposed to treat that proposal?
In this particular case, you will see when I go through the facts that it was an excuse at every stage for the Ombudsman to close the file. I'm going to suggest to you that there's nothing in the act that grants the Ombudsman the authority or the jurisdiction to close down a file, in other words, discontinue an investigation, simply because there is yet another proposal before the Ombudsman.
I propose to go through the facts of the case, the actual complaint, in about two minutes, just to give you a flavour of how this issue came before the Ombudsman. Then I will go through sort of a detailed analysis of what the Ombudsman has or hasn't done on this case, and finally I will make some suggestions.
This complaint occurred as a result of students at Georgian College attempting to get or to exhort the administration of the college to enforce board resolutions. There was a board resolution on the books of Georgian College requiring course evaluations to be done. At the time the students brought this to the administration -- senior administration, ie, president, vice-president etc -- 48% of the teacher evaluations, for example, were not done.
After protracted efforts by the students to get the administration to enforce the board resolutions, they filed for an injunction in the Ontario Court (General Division). Coincidentally, the next working day, those instrumental in the filing of the injunction were ejected from the campus for life without a hearing and their tuition was returned.
Subsequent to that ejection, the administration attempted to deceive both the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the complainant that it was a board decision. It turns out in the end that there never was a board decision to eject these people, it was an administrative decision, but for months and months and months the administration was advising both the complainant and the ministry that it was a board decision.
The administration also attempted to deceive the ministry and the complainant for months that there was, "an existing administrative practice," and I'm referring here now to subsection 17(1) of the Ombudsman Act. The administration was arguing and advising -- and the complainant has a letter on file from the Deputy Minister of Colleges and Universities stating that there was an appeal process available to the complainants. There never was an appeal process available to the complainants.
Mr Bruce Hill, who is now the new president of Georgian College as of December 31, 1991, entered into a binding agreement with the complainants to reveal the evidence supporting the college's actions. The complainants have never, ever received any information supporting the college's actions. It's been a year and a third, one year and four months, and the complainant has never received any information on why the complainant was ejected from the campus.
Interestingly, the college still refuses to reveal any information on why the complainant was ejected from the campus. However, interestingly, the college attempted to encourage the Ombudsman to discontinue her investigation. If I can just repeat that point: While the college is attempting to not disclose any information to the complainant, they are attempting to encourage the Ombudsman to discontinue her investigation. That's a bit of an overview of the complaint.
Now, with respect to the Ombudsman herself, a complaint was lodged on June 11, 1991. The allegation was breach of natural justice. It's interesting to note that there were no recommendations from the complainant to the Ombudsman on what to do. It was simply, "Here's the problem." This is important when we get to section 17.
On June 12, there is a letter from the complainant to the Ombudsman saying, "Would you expedite the file, because we would like to get back on campus by September 1991." On June 26, 1991, the Ombudsman writes to the complainant, saying, "We will review your file." Nothing happens for another month.
On July 23, the complainant telephones the Ombudsman, saying: "Would you please expedite our file? We want to be allowed to register for the fall term." The Ombudsman -- and this is important for this committee -- advises the complainant that she has more important cases to deal with and in fact states that the cases where money is involved with respect to social services are more important than this case. Yet she promises to expedite the file. That was on July 23.
On July 24, the Ombudsman writes a letter to the minister advising that the minister should adhere to his existing administrative policy. We will find out that there is no existing administrative policy. On September 2, 1991, the complainant contacts both the minister and the Ombudsman and advises of the urgency of the matter. Why? Because September 7 was the last day to register for the fall term.
September 23: The complainant has a telephone conversation with the Ombudsman. This is what I will call the first attempt to dissuade the complainant. The complainant advises the Ombudsman that there is no appeal available; there is no appeal available within the college or institution's own practice and procedure manual, and there is no existing proposal from the college. So there is no appeal available, and the Ombudsman knows on September 23, 1991, that there is no existing administrative practice to deal with this matter.
The Ombudsman advises the complainant that the college asks for more time. Now, the importance of this is that it is at the expense of the complainant. The complainant wants to register for September 7, and the Ombudsman is granting more time to the institution, the governmental organization. In the meantime, who loses out? The poor complainant. The Ombudsman also states on September 23, "My view is that the college is scrambling to put something together."
1420
Meanwhile, the students cannot register. The Ombudsman also states at that time that for administrative ease -- and this is why I call it dissuasion attempt number one -- she wants to close the file. The complainants are dumfounded. This is the first time the complainants start to wonder whether it may be easier to fight the institution than to fight with the Ombudsman.
September 30: The complainant phones the Ombudsman and basically says, "Let's get the investigation moving." This is now September 30; they've missed the September 7 deadline.
October 21: The college comes forward with a proposal. I won't go through the details of the proposal, but one lawyer said, "It would make a first-year law student laugh."
October 28: The Ombudsman serves her notice of intent to investigate. The complaint has been on her desk since June 11.
November 15: There's a letter from the Ombudsman to the complainant -- and this is what I call dissuasion attempt number two -- attempting to close the file again. I shall read a quote from the letter from the Ombudsman to the complainant. "The appeal which the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is endeavouring to set up, however, would appear to provide a legitimate administrative review" -- not existing administrative practice -- "which it would be appropriate for you to take advantage of."
My suggestion to you is that is a clear recommendation to the complainant to accept this proposal. Interestingly, the Ombudsman hasn't even investigated. The Ombudsman is recommending before she's investigated.
The second quote from that same letter dated November 15, 1991: "It is our view that it would be inappropriate for our office to intervene while this appeal process is available to you. It is therefore our intention to discontinue investigation until you exhaust this appeal. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome, you may advise us and we will reopen your file."
How did the complainants feel about this? First of all, the Ombudsman hadn't even seen the proposal at this stage. When this letter was written on November 15 advising the complainant to accept the proposal and close the file down, the Ombudsman had not even seen the proposal.
Second, the Ombudsman's office hadn't even investigated, had not received the college's file on this matter, yet it was recommending to the complainant that the complainant accept the proposal.
Third, under clause 17(1)(a) of the act, the Ombudsman can, if there is an existing administrative practice which provides an adequate remedy, refuse to investigate. But how can the Ombudsman, with all due respect, conclude that there is an adequate remedy if she hasn't even investigated to find out what the facts are?
So how does the complainant feel? The complainant feels that there was self-serving influence by the Ombudsman on the complainant, that there was a predisposition on the part of the Ombudsman to close the file down for administrative ease as opposed to investigating an action for the little guy against this huge bureaucracy. That was dissuasion attempt number two.
December 13: The top legal adviser within the Ombudsman's office writes what may be described as a cover-your-actions letter to the complainant. In that letter, she advises that under the act, if there is a right of an appeal, an objection or a hearing under clause 14(4)(a), then the Ombudsman can refuse to investigate. She then says in the same letter, "But this is not your case." The complainant read this as an attempt to influence the complainant to close down the file.
But then an officer within the Ombudsman's office went further in that letter of December 13 and stated that under clause 17(1)(a), if there's an existing administrative practice which provides an adequate remedy, they can refuse to close the file. I quote again from that letter:
"The information provided by" the Ombudsman "indicated that the appeal which the ministry was attempting to set up would provide a legitimate administrative remedy" -- notice the wording here, "legitimate administrative remedy," not "an existing administrative practice" -- "which had been specifically structured to meet your procedural requirements. It was, accordingly, our tentative view that you should avail yourself of this possible remedy before we become further involved."
But the letter of November 15 was not a tentative view; it was saying, "We want to close the file down and we suggest that you accept the proposal." She goes on in that same letter of December 13 and states:
"It is unfortunate that it has taken some time to clarify the status and nature of the appeals/reviews available to you. This is something we are required to do before initiating an investigation, however."
My point to you people is that I don't see in the act where they're required to do this, and I don't see how a proposal is an existing administrative practice.
I see that my time is running short. I might say at this point that the file of the complainant is certainly open to the committee. Anything that is in the file, you're welcome to review. Second, any comments I make or any embellishments you may wish on any technical arguments I will certainly be willing to submit to you in writing, if you want them.
Let me get to the third dissuasion attempt. The third phone call was a couple of weeks ago from the Ombudsman. This is a crucial phone call. The Ombudsman called the complainant and advised the complainant, "In similar cases, complainants don't get much more than what was offered in the proposal." The complainant then said, "Have they obtained things that are not in the proposal, like monetary compensation?" The Ombudsman said yes.
The complainant then said, "Then why are you calling me to close down the file yet a third time?" The Ombudsman stated that they were having difficulty with the college being willing to disclose the information, disclose the file to the Ombudsman. The complainant then said: "That's not my problem. You deal with it. You have the full weight of the law behind you." The Ombudsman stated that it would make for "clearer sailing" -- and that's a quote -- if the complainant were to accept or reject the proposal.
At that stage the complainant said, "How can I accept or reject the proposal if I don't know what the file is about because you haven't investigated?" The Ombudsman then said, "We do not want to have to subpoena the witnesses," an astounding statement by the Ombudsman. The complainant then said, "Have you ever filed for a search warrant and served the search warrant on a governmental organization?" At that stage the Ombudsman's officer said no; a senior officer in the Ombudsman's office said no.
What is the effect on the complainant of a phone call like this with yet another -- this, by the way, is the second proposal to the complainant, again not seen by the Ombudsman. The complainant feels, again, self-serving influence on the complainant to close the file.
1430
Now, what are the suggestions on how to deal with this? I won't waste too much time, but I refer the committee to sections 14 and 17. A major point I want to make is section 14.
Subsection 14(1) establishes the function of the Ombudsman. Notice the wording of subsection 14(1). Subsection 14(1) says, "The function of the Ombudsman is to investigate." I cannot repeat that word enough. It says, "The function of the Ombudsman is to investigate." It does not say "mediate," it does not say "convince the complainant to accept a proposal" and it does not say "negotiate." It says "investigate." So why for six months -- now over a year -- has the Ombudsman still not initiated the investigation? What is the effect of this proposal before the Ombudsman? That's my question to this committee.
Then I refer you to subsection 14(2). This is the one I'm sure this committee has enjoyed with the Ombudsman. It says, "The Ombudsman may make any such investigation." The operative word there is "may." I suspect the Ombudsman is using that word "may" to support an argument that the Ombudsman has absolute discretion.
There are many administrative bodies that fall under this same type of clause, this permissive investigatory clause; there are many. I suggest to you that clause means that the Ombudsman may investigate a complaint subject to the constraints and restrictions imposed upon the Ombudsman in the act. It's not an absolute discretion. Then you're bumped to section 17.
Section 17 is the section that says the Ombudsman may refuse to investigate in her discretion if it's trivial, vexatious and so on. But there's also another section there, clause 17(1)(a), that says the Ombudsman may refuse to investigate if there is an existing administrative practice. I submit to you that a proposal is not an existing administrative practice.
Why? First of all, "practice" is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as an established method. How can a proposal that's put on the table that isn't even accepted by the complainant be an established method of dealing with the problem?
Second, how can it be existing if it's not accepted by the complainant yet? A labour negotiation proposal, a labour arbitration agreement, is not existing until either both sides accept it or it's imposed by the arbitrator. It's not an existing administrative practice.
Third, what's the operative time period here? The operative time period isn't years later when the governmental organization is attempting to circle the wagons. The operative time period for determining whether or not there is an existing administrative practice is when the wrongdoing has occurred; in other words, in this case, when the students were ejected for life from the campus of Georgian College. I can go on at length on that.
I also direct your attention to "adequate remedy." How can the Ombudsman determine that there is an adequate remedy if she hasn't investigated? I have more comments. I'll submit those in a written submission, if you wish.
Let me get to a written recommendation that this committee may want to consider, a recommendation not unlike the recommendations in the 40-odd recommendations in the 19th review. Let me suggest two recommendations to you:
l. That section 1 of the Ombudsman Act be amended by adding after clause 17(1)(b) the following: "Existing administrative practice does not include a proposal from a government organization to a complainant." In other words, in the definitional section you're simply defining "existing administrative practice" to not include a proposal. That's one way you could attack it.
2. A second way of attacking the problem is that the following be established as a rule under subsection 15(1) of the Ombudsman Act. Here's the rule: "Unless with the informed consent of the complainant, the Ombudsman shall not discontinue an investigation on the grounds that there is a proposal from the government organization to the complainant."
What's the effect of either of those two proposals? To require the Ombudsman to investigate until she makes a recommendation. That's the bottom line here. Don't try to close a file every time a government organization attempts to come forward with yet another proposal. Who knows whether the proposal is good or bad until you've investigated, unless the complainant accepts it?
Those are my long-winded suggestions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Gateman. Questions or comments? I would appreciate it if each caucus could limit it to one question, as we have five minutes left in the half-hour presentation.
Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): You're a professor of law at what college?
Mr Gateman: I'm on sabbatical now. I was from Alberta.
Mr Callahan: Who were you connected with?
Mr Gateman: I was with the University of Alberta.
Mr Callahan: I think it's important to lay on the table what this injunction was brought for, what the students were trying to do. Do you feel able to do that?
Mr Gateman: The students were attempting to enforce an existing board resolution on the books of the college that required teacher evaluations to be done.
Mr Callahan: All right. Now --
Mr Gateman: If I can just interrupt for one second, at the time they were requesting that the board resolutions be enforced, 48% of the teacher evaluations were not done.
Mr Callahan: All right.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Callahan. Mr Villeneuve, please.
Mr Callahan: Just a second, Mr Chairman. I'm trying to ask some questions and I'm not even getting a chance to. May I please have more latitude?
The Chair: You can ask one more question, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: One more? We're investigating the Ombudsman. Maybe we should be investigating this committee if I'm not able to ask any more questions than that.
The Chair: As I stated when I started, Mr Callahan, we are on a limited time frame. There are five minutes left in the presentation.
Mr Callahan: Mr Morrow, I don't think we're on a limited time frame when we're hearing allegations against a person who represents an office that has heretofore in this province been an exceptional assistance to people, with such famous people as Arthur Maloney and Mr Justice Morand. We've heard from a person here today, in the absence of the present holder of that office, and I think I'm entitled to ask questions of this gentleman to try to draw out and perhaps assist the office -- if not the person in the office, certainly the office -- to make certain that it's not just simply mud unduly slung without the opportunity of knowing what's going on. That's why I think I'm entitled to ask those questions.
The Chair: What are the feelings of the committee as a whole? Are they in favour?
Mr Owens: In light of a schedule that could be described as less than taxing, I think maybe we could look at a little bit more latitude. I think Mr Callahan is right. Mr Gateman has raised some allegations that I'm certainly interested in pursuing and I think we should allow some latitude.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Go ahead, Mr Callahan.
Mr Callahan: Thank you. Georgian College is run by the Council of Regents. That's who you're talking about who would have had the authority --
Mr Gateman: My understanding, sir, is that the Minister of Colleges and Universities is seized with the responsibility of managing the colleges and that the Ontario Council of Regents is simply an advisory body to the minister. That's my understanding.
Mr Callahan: All right. It seems very strange. I find it quite astounding that students would take that matter to the General Division court for an injunction. It must have been very costly for them.
Mr Gateman: I certainly can't comment.
Mr Callahan: Or did they have gratuitous legal advice?
Mr Gateman: I certainly can't comment on that.
Mr Callahan: You can't tell me whether they had gratuitous legal advice?
Mr Gateman: I can't comment on that; that's right, sir.
Mr Callahan: It seems to me that under the Ombudsman Act, to begin with, even if it's investigated by the Ombudsman's office, the best that can happen is that it recommend to the minister that he do something about it, and if he doesn't, then it sends a letter to the Premier.
Mr Gateman: They did that, sir. They have letters back from Premier Bob Rae.
1440
Mr Callahan: I mean if that's the best you're going to get from the Ombudsman; one would think the procedure that would have been taken, perhaps, would have been to have spoken with -- or maybe I should ask, did they ever talk to the people at the College of Regents to determine why they were not evaluating teachers?
Mr Gateman: There's a two-pronged answer to your question. First, yes, they did talk to the chair of the Council of Regents, Richard Johnston, and he played a Pontius Pilate role in this case and washed his hands of the affair.
Mr Curling: I don't understand that.
Mr Gateman: Second, they approached the Ombudsman because the Minister of Colleges and Universities advised the students to deal with the matter through the Ombudsman. While they were dealing with the Ombudsman's office, on the advice of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Richard Allen, the counsel for Georgian College was writing letters to the Ombudsman, encouraging the Ombudsman to close the file.
Mr Callahan: You're talking about Mr Johnston. Surely the Council of Regents is made up of more than just Mr Richard Johnston.
Mr Gateman: Maybe I haven't made my answer clear. Richard Allen, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, advised the students to deal with this matter through the Ombudsman's office. While the students were attempting to get the Ombudsman to investigate, the counsel for Georgian College was writing letters, behind the students' backs, may I say, to the Ombudsman, attempting to encourage the Ombudsman to close the file.
Mr Callahan: The trustees of the Council of Regents refused, then, to evaluate teachers. That's what you're saying?
Mr Curling: The minister did.
Mr Gateman: No, I'm not. I'm saying that the minister advised the students to deal with the matter through the Ombudsman.
Mr Callahan: I'm sure that others want to ask questions, but I --
Mr Gateman: But, with respect, the reason we're here today is not to deal with the issue before the Ombudsman; the reason we're here is to deal with how the Ombudsman has dealt with the complaint.
Mr Callahan: I appreciate that, but I think that --
Mr Gateman: Our point to you is that there have been three attempts by the Ombudsman, when a proposal arrives on her desk or even before the proposal arrives on her desk, to use self-serving influence on the complainants to suggest to them that they accept or reject proposals that they don't even know about or to close the file. That's the issue, why we're here.
Mr Callahan: Quite frankly, I find it offensive to have people coming and testifying without providing the opportunity for the person against whom they're testifying to at least hear the allegations and respond to them.
Mr Gateman: Sir, all I can do is re-read the letters from the Ombudsman's office.
Mr Mammoliti: She doesn't want to be here. It's not his fault.
Mr Murdoch: First, I'd just like to defend the Chair on the time for Mr Callahan. We do have time set up, and the Chair was only trying to make sure everything --
Mr Curling: We've been through that already; go ahead.
Mr Murdoch: No, I was going to say don't forget we'd like to rule on this too, Mr Chair. When you ask the other side, it's fine, but -- I know we have a schedule and I appreciate what you're trying to do here. I'll be short, then.
We have the same frustration problem with our committee, and we look like we're going through the same thing that you've gone through. But are the complainants totally frustrated with the system? I just want to know. Do they figure our system here has broken down?
Mr Gateman: I think it's fair to say that the complainants are rather mystified that it's taken over a year and a quarter to actually get up to the college and take the first step, and that is get the file.
Mr Murdoch: Noble has a quick question.
Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Fifteen months' time is way too long for anything when we talk about a situation that has gone through probably another 15 months of dealing with different ministry officials. What mechanism, in this case, did the college use to not provide the Ombudsman with the required documentation? I thought that when an Ombudsman requests, of a governmental institution, a file, a document or a series of documents, they would be forthcoming immediately. What did they use to stall?
Mr Gateman: They argued that the Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction. The reason the Ombudsman did not have jurisdiction was because there were parallel actions, one of which was a request to the Information and Privacy Commissioner to get the file.
In all fairness to the Ombudsman, subsequent to May 15, there was a six-month statute of limitation to file a statement of claim against a minister of the crown. Because the Ombudsman hadn't done anything, the complainant was obligated to file a statement of claim or be statute-barred from suing the minister. So there was a period of probably three months when the Ombudsman was on solid ground to argue, "We can't do anything because there is a parallel action."
In all fairness, I think the estimate on how long it's taken the Ombudsman to do something is not a year and a third, but just a year. If you add to that the fact that it took them a year to take one step and that it's probably going to take 10 steps to solve this matter, we're looking at two or three years before the matter is resolved.
I refer you to the 19th report, which I had an opportunity to read yesterday. There are matters that are in the two-year range, and this committee finds it rather disturbing, to say the least, that the Ombudsman hasn't moved the case along.
Mr Villeneuve: Could you make a quick recommendation? This committee is sitting right now to try to correct the procedural nightmares we're having, some quick fixes.
Mr Gateman: My quick recommendation is what I read at the very end, and that is to deal with the definition of "existing administrative practice" and to deal with how the Ombudsman treats proposals.
After talking to the Ombudsman just last week to advise her that I was bringing this matter forward, so that she wouldn't feel I was doing anything untoward behind her back, I can advise that it was clear to me that the Ombudsman's office does not have any practice or procedure to deal with proposals. In fact, their letter I read out to you treats proposals as reviews under the act, and they're not.
My suggestion to you is to define "existing administrative practice" under section 1 of the act, or under section 15 pass a regulation that says, "Without the consent of the complainant, the Ombudsman cannot discontinue an investigation."
The beauty of this is that it puts the Ombudsman on the hot seat to commit herself to making a recommendation, and she loses nothing. In fact, it's to the Ombudsman's benefit to do this, because she will not be wasting time dealing with trivial tactical moves on the part of an institution, in this case Georgian College, to delay and delay the matter and to win, what is obvious to any objective observer, a war of attrition, to wear out the complainant.
The Chair: Ms Haeck, please.
Ms Haeck: I will yield to Mr Owens.
Mr Owens: I share Mr Callahan's concerns in terms of some of the comments that have been made, and I would like to request that perhaps a copy of this afternoon's Hansard be sent to the Ombudsman so that she may have an opportunity to respond. Then she may also take the opportunity to attend the committee as well, which would be nice.
I guess my question is around the time period that it's taken for your action to proceed. As Mr Villeneuve indicated, 15 months is a heck of a long time, especially when registration dates and time-sensitive issues are involved. What recommendations would you make to this committee in terms of fast-tracking cases, and perhaps setting up a process where time-sensitive issues are handled expeditiously or issues where either a person's livelihood or liberty, if it's a person who's involved in the correctional system, is involved? What kinds of recommendations would you make in that respect?
Mr Gateman: I find that question very interesting; it's a good question. My response to it is that if you deal with the ambiguity that surrounds the practice and procedures of the Ombudsman regarding proposals, then you will have fast-tracked a lot of the cases.
I'm certainly not going to speak to the issue of how you would red-flag a file and give this one top priority. What I'm suggesting from the experience in this file, in this case -- by the way, all these comments are simply as a result of this case.
1450
Mr Owens: Sorry to interrupt you, but as members of this committee, as you're well aware, we certainly have immunity with respect to things that may be said. However, you as a witness -- and there's obviously at least one member of the press here. Our concern is that if you're making comments that cannot be substantiated. First of all, you're impugning the reputation of someone who in the opinion of this committee has had an excellent reputation and, second, putting yourself at risk for actions against yourself.
Mr Gateman: I'm well aware of that. The only reason these statements of fact cannot be substantiated is because you're suggesting there is a contrary view. If there is a contrary view, then this committee certainly has methods of dealing with it.
I'm simply stating to you the facts of the complainant in this case. Now to suggest that those facts are not correct, this committee can certainly subpoena other witnesses. But the facts of this case are as have been stated to this committee this afternoon and I ask this committee to strongly consider dealing with the matter of a tactical stonewall on the part of an administration or of an institution by putting forward yet more and more proposals. The effect of that proposal is, sir, that the Ombudsman then calls the complainant and attempts to influence the complainant to accept or reject proposals without any investigation ever having been done.
Mr Owens: We take that very seriously.
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, please. If you can make it very brief, I'd appreciate it.
Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chair, very, very quickly. Sir, what role do you see this committee playing in reference to the Ombudsman's office and what role would you want to see this legislative committee play in reference to the Ombudsman's office?
Mr Gateman: That's asking me to generalize from a very specific case. I'll make two quick points: One, on this particular case before you, I would hope that this committee would deal with the matter of proposals. On a more general comment, I would hope that the committee would deal with subsection 14(2), which says the Ombudsman may investigate, and deal with whether or not that superimposes on the Ombudsman absolute discretion.
I can indicate, as I have said, and your counsel may give you advice on this, that there are other bodies that have that same type of section and it does not grant them absolute authority, absolute discretion. That intertwines with the problem of proposals, because the Ombudsman can argue that she wants to close the file down at her absolute discretion, regardless of whether the investigation has been done and regardless of whether the proposal is fair and adequate.
I hope those are two things that this committee -- the business of proposal and the business of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction under subsection 14(2) -- would send some directions on under subsection 15(1), which allows you to enforce regulations. That's what I would hope, sir.
Mr Mammoliti: That's all I have, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: I want to thank you very much, Mr Gateman, for taking the time out this afternoon to give us that fine presentation.
Mr Gateman: I want to thank the committee for listening.
MARGARET HUTCHISON
The Chair: Next we have Margaret Hutchison. Good afternoon, Ms Hutchison. You have a half-hour for your presentation. The committee would appreciate it if you would leave some time at the end so it can ask some questions or have some comments. Begin when you're ready. Take your time, and would you please read your name into the record.
Ms Margaret Hutchison: My name is Margaret Hutchison. However, Mr Murdoch will know that I'm commonly known as Peggy. I'm not trying to be deceitful, but it is a nickname by which I am known.
Just to begin with, I'd like to comment that I'm glad I came early enough to hear Mr Gateman's presentation, because I think we can save a certain amount of time. I realize I'm going to come to pretty similar conclusions as he has about the role of the Ombudsman and just the way the Ombudsman's office interacts with the public and with complainants.
Considering whether the Ombudsman herself should be here or should not be here, it was coincident that I also met with her last week. I've been following a case, not of my own but on behalf of a complainant, and helping him with it. I won't disclose all the details of that, because I don't want to compromise -- we finally did have a meeting with the Ombudsman last week, and I did not tell her that in the meantime, since we'd been given this meeting, I was coming here. I'm not coming to complain about her, herself, but mainly just see if there may be some flaws in the way that this particular complaint has been handled.
At the time that I met with her I picked up a copy of this book, and I'm very impressed with the opening statement. My background -- until about three years ago, I was just a student of philosophy and a farmer and a technical writer. I had not heard of any act in Ontario, or cared, or about politicians or what MPPs stood for. But because of an issue that affected me personally, I quickly came into contact with a number of government agencies and discovered what happens when things fall between two stones, and how frustrating it can be when two people are telling you opposing things or: "Contact this other ministry. We don't deal with that."
As a result of that I became involved in the land use issue. I guess the success of that is that we did get the attention of the previous government, and the subsequent government has undertaken the Sewell commission and so on. That is my experience, and I guess the success of that is I now have people phone from all over Bruce and Grey and Simcoe counties asking me for help to deal not with that particular issue but other agencies, the Ministry of Housing and so on. So in a sense, I find that I can, as they say --
I have to confess. You see, I ran against Mr Murdoch in the election with the NDP. I might as well be really upfront. I didn't realize that he was on this committee until I came today. Hansard only tells you who the chairman is. It doesn't tell you who the members are.
As I say, that is an aside. I'd never heard of the Ombudsman until this neighbour three years ago said, "Well, if I don't get any success, I'll go the Ombudsman." To give them credit, this was in June 1989, so that's how far back this particular case goes with the Ombudsman. They were told right off the bat: "If it's a municipal issue, we can't deal with it. It's only provincial agencies." So they had to wait until it got to the point where it was a provincial issue. The Ombudsman has actually only handled it since February 1991, and last week we finally got an interview with the Ombudsman herself.
In a sense I can understand what the role of the Ombudsman is. It's a very impartial role. I have found myself in this position partly because I ran for the party that did form the government and everyone immediately assumes, "You just phone any ministry and tell them what to do." I've had a certain amount of success, not saying who I was or anything else, but if you have a phone book, you know exactly whom to go to and ask.
In a case with the Ministry of Housing I found that the people I was helping who were doing some public housing knew another unit that was able to use certain standards for their electrical, and they couldn't understand why the ministry was telling them that they had to do something else which was going to cost them about $15,000 more. So I got on the phone and went through and found that this department hadn't gotten the updated technical report that said they could now use these standards, and the person who was advising them out of the regional office was going by the old standards. So that quickly got straightened out, but I realize how important it is. You need somebody to help you just sort through this stuff, and not everybody knows how to do it quickly and how to get an answer.
1500
I was pleased to see how many cases have been quickly responded to when the Ombudsman puts the details forward. One of my first recommendations probably would be, though, from working with this particular person on this case -- my role has been in helping them articulate exactly what it was they wanted the Ombudsman to do. The Ombudsman very quickly said what the mandate was to some degree, just that they could only handle it if it was a government agency, but there was never any clear -- just a sheet of paper, an information sheet that says: "This is what my mandate is. I can only look at these things, and this is the kind of information I need to give to an investigator to handle it. Tell us clearly what it is that you want." It might have been speeded up if I'd gotten involved with this person a little earlier, and if the Ombudsman had said what her mandate was earlier we could have spelled it out more clearly.
I'll just give you a brief history of how this case has gone and where some of the frustration has resulted.
June of 1989: An initial inquiry to the Ombudsman was told, "Can't do anything until it's a government agency that we're dealing with."
February of 1991: The case was then referred to the Ombudsman and they were very helpful, and said that in fact they had set up a new public program where they were going out to communities to meet with people. So went to Owen Sound and was able to meet with someone from the regional office who heard the case and said: "Yes, I think you do have something that the Ombudsman can help you with. Go home. Write it out," and so on.
Subsequently, then, in June of 1991 -- it takes a while to do this -- this person received a letter back saying: "Yes, we are going to undertake this investigation. We've handed it to this investigator. This is his name." Great. Silence. Never heard from the investigator.
In this particular case time is of the essence, because the longer this went the more damaging it would be if the decision this agency had made was going to be reversed. Obviously there's somebody on the other side who has the favourable decision and if you're asking an agency to change its decision, the longer it goes the worse it gets. So there were a number of phone calls to this investigator asking what the status was and did he need more information. It seemed like a fairly simple investigation.
Finally, I got involved I guess in September of 1991, and we sent a letter to the Ombudsman -- no, to this investigator. Previously when Mr Gateman was speaking we had to distinguish when we're referring to the Ombudsman herself or the Office of the Ombudsman, because I don't think you can blame everything on the Ombudsman herself when people -- for instance, this investigator seemed to be quite intractable about receiving guidance on conducting the investigation.
Finally, I sent a letter to the investigator and to his superior; he had apparently promised this report by Christmas. Which Christmas? Christmas had come and gone and I still hadn't heard anything. So finally the report arrived about a week after that. We read the report and I said, "Is this our case?" The report was trying to defend this government agency almost, trying to explain some of its decisions and so on, without saying whether they'd investigated what we'd asked them to investigate and whether they were satisfied with the response they'd received from this agency. We met with the investigator, went over the report, literally tore it apart. We pasted it out on a big book, cardboard, went through with all our letters back and forth from the agency, from the Ombudsman, from different bodies, sort of substantiating all the errors that had been made in this report, which was supposedly going to the Ombudsman so that she could make a final decision.
At the end of this meeting I said: "Can we just clarify the three things that we would like you to do as part of your investigation? The first thing is to rewrite this report fixing these things or shortening it, and not to waste the Ombudsman's time. Could we not see a copy of this just to make sure that you do finally have it right?" Second, we asked them to write to the agency and request a copy of their policies and procedures for dealing with complaints. Third, we were requesting a letter from the Ombudsman herself on whether they considered the response of that agency -- because we knew they didn't have them written down -- to be equitable, all this in the light of knowing that this very same agency had made a decision for another party quite different, and based on what?
The result of all this was -- I'm not quite sure, that was March 1992 -- in April, maybe May 1992 we finally got a letter from the Ombudsman: file closed. We consider that the letter we received back from the agency is satisfactory, but no copy of whether it had these policies and procedures, because in the meantime, I'd run into the chairman of that agency who admitted that it didn't have anything written down. They just sort of wing it. I said, "Well, do you really tell me you're running a government agency where every time something comes in, you do something different, you just wing it?"
It was about that time that I saw a billboard in Toronto, huge, on Avenue Road, that said: "What do you do when Queen's Park is putting you through hoops? You phone the Ombudsman. Here's the 1-800 number." So I wrote a letter to the Ombudsman, saying, "What do you do when the Ombudsman's putting you through hoops?" The timing of that and the announcement of this committee seemed to coincide. Magically, we got our meeting last week.
I found the Ombudsman herself to be very responsive and wanting to get right to the point. I think in that meeting -- it was almost an hour that we met -- it became clear to her that the crux of what we were asking her to do had not been relayed to her. Finally, because I had this, I said: "What is your mandate? Is it not as stated in here, to request that a government agency not just appear to be fair and equitable, but actually abide by it. If they have an appeal process or whatever it is, bylaws, whatever, it may look good on paper, but are they actually implementing it?"
I don't know. That's why I say I didn't want to compromise what her decision would be by saying that I would be coming today, because it will be up to her. But I think I gathered from that meeting that they will then be requesting from this agency exactly what we'd initially asked for. I apologized to her for sort of having to waste her time on that, when 15 months before we knew exactly -- we had stated that before, but for some reason that had not been relayed.
Mr Carrozza sent me a copy of this report. It just all happened to be coincidence and I wondered why the standing committee -- is this committee separate from the standing committee you've been convened to --
The Vice-Chair: This is the standing committee.
Ms Hutchison: The names are all different. There are more names and different names and I wasn't sure.
Mr Callahan: We are sitting right now, but we are the standing committee.
Ms Hutchison: I won't keep you sitting too long. I just request Mr Carrozza to send a copy of this to me.
Certainly I was surprised at one of the responses that something had taken so long, when it did not seem to have been the complainant's fault that it had taken so long. I'll be sending you a written report. I'll just sort of go through and give some items. I didn't want to bore you with reading something today.
My conclusions are probably pretty similar to what Mr Gateman ahead of me was saying. In the Ministry of Revenue they've instituted a -- I forget what they call it -- reorganizing, that's not it, retechnology, just looking at the way they handle information. When people phone, who do they get directed to? John Randolph has headed that up, and I think they're going to try and do this with other ministries. In a sense, it's streamlining and it's making an agency more responsive to the public and trying to just get to the crux of the matter and make agencies more uniform.
I think today a lot of things have changed. People have faxes, and they expect more. If you phone a ministry and someone says, "I haven't heard it because it's in this pile of white paper." You can say, "I'll fax you a copy." You don't have to put it in the mail and wonder whether it's still going to get routed to the wrong person. "What's your fax number? I'll fax it to you. You can phone me back in 15 minutes and tell me why the letter I sent you six months ago hasn't been acted on."
This has raised people's expectations as well on how agencies work. I think this is what assists in getting the antagonism of people who normally would have just said, "Oh, this is the government. Forget about it. I'll just go back to what I was doing. I'll transfer to another college," or whatever.
1510
One of the recommendations I probably would have, though, is -- the Ombudsman seems to rely on only one framework of information coming and certainly doesn't have time to go over all these complaints -- when a complaint is received, people should sit down and, almost as an exploration or like a discovery, once they've decided that this is an investigation that they can handle and is within their jurisdiction, help them establish what exactly it is that they want done. Then you have a benchmark to put that against. Listening to that previous case, I think maybe that wasn't clearly identified for the Ombudsman either.
Relative then to this initiative of the reorganization, as it's called, it sort of comes under general office administration and process and it's something that perhaps the Office of the Ombudsman hasn't really looked at. The person herself is good at making decisions and is fair and so on, but really look at the way complaints are handled and just the whole process within the Ombudsman's office itself and perhaps, if part of its mandate is to make sure that other agencies meet certain standards, provide almost a course for any agency that has an appeal board or something, to make sure there is some kind of uniformity.
Some of these complaints seem to get handled very quickly and others don't and since there are no statistics to show which ones were just quickly taken care of, which ones required a lengthy investigation and which agencies there were, you might find that some agencies are known for being intransigent about having the Ombudsman try to interact with them, whereas other agencies are much more responsive.
I'll be writing in and commenting on what your own recommendations seem to have been. The one that was mentioned, that there should be statistics and there should be a comparison to the year before and something to show what cases are ongoing and maybe identify what kinds of things really are problems, is certainly one I'd support. I don't know whether you have any questions on what I've said.
The Vice-Chair: We do, and we do try to do them in an orderly manner. The previous speaker had, I would say, about 50 minutes for his presentation and questions and we'll try to keep yours in a fair line as well. I guess under those circumstances we have about 20 minutes for questions and we'll split that through the caucuses. The first person with his hand up was Mr Mammoliti, and then Mr Callahan, and we'll take others as they raise their hands.
Mr Mammoliti: You're not going in rotation then.
The Vice-Chair: No. We'll start over there and then we'll go over here.
Mr Mammoliti: There are three recommendations I have taken note of. Of course the first one is improved communications within the office, something that you recommended.
Ms Hutchison: Yes. I found one particular person to be quite intransigent.
Mr Mammoliti: Okay. We're going to get to that in a minute. The second one is to try to implement a system whereby the complainant is helped somehow.
Mr Hutchison: Yes.
Mr Mammoliti: Right now there doesn't seem to be a mechanism there to help people who are complaining.
Ms Hutchison: No.
Mr Mammoliti: It's taken for granted that each complainer knows what to do.
Ms Hutchison: The Ombudsman's office, I can testify, is quite good about its confidentiality. At some point I was authorized by the complainant to phone this investigator and try to say what this person could not say himself and could not speak to me about. Finally, he got authorized through the complainant that, yes, I could speak, and that was great. This was quite far down when I got involved and no one had sort of said to him: "Let's clearly identify what is I'm going to do. Is that what you want me to do?" and he would have said: "No, no. This is what I want you to do."
Mr Mammoliti: The third one is to improve the process in which complaints are handled.
Ms Hutchison: Yes.
Mr Mammoliti: In your particular experience, did you find there was a lack of communication -- I'm going to ask you to be more specific, okay? -- perhaps that there was a breakdown in communication between the levels you were dealing with at that office?
Ms Hutchison: Yes.
Mr Mammoliti: And did you get a sense that there was perhaps a low morale or that somebody was blaming something on somebody else in that office while you were doing that?
Ms Hutchison: I didn't get that sense, but I certainly got the sense that the information was not being conveyed within the office, and because I never did see the final report of this investigator to the Ombudsman, we could only establish from what her response was that he still had not put into that report what really we felt the crux of the investigation was.
Mr Mammoliti: What about attitude at that level? Were you treated appropriately when you phoned? Were you being spoken to in a rude manner? Do you have any complaints about that?
Ms Hutchison: No. Right up until that point, it was good. Right up until the point where the investigator took it on, it was very good, but, as I say, silence. We never heard anything, nothing in writing. We would send a written letter, because, as any good lawyer knows, you want it on paper, and get a verbal reply finally, but I don't like writing letters where I sort of have to threaten someone or cc it to his superior. I don't think that's the way to do things, but that seemed to be the only way to get this investigator to respond.
I certainly didn't like writing to the Ombudsman and saying, "What do you do when the Ombudsman's putting you through hoops?" I don't know how it was that she responded, but I felt from meeting her that it became obvious to her that somewhere between A and B she had not been getting the information, and I think she was surprised in that meeting what the very simple things were that we were asking for.
Mr Callahan: Again I just want to set the record straight. There's nothing in the legislation that calls upon the Ombudsman to be accountable to us or anybody, and that's the legislation. That was passed by the Legislature of Ontario, and for a very clear purpose, I think.
I'll read what she says she thinks the reason is, but if you look at sections of that act, subsection 5(2) says, "The Public Service Act and the Public Service Pension Act do not apply to the Ombudsman," a clear indication that she or he was not to be part of the civil service. Subsection 14(2) says, "The Ombudsman" --
Mr Perruzza: She's covered by the Legislative Assembly pension system.
Interjections.
Mr Callahan: Just a second. "The Ombudsman may make any such investigation on a complaint made to him or her by any person affected or by any member of the assembly." It says "may." It's not mandatory. If I make a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of a constituent, she is not bound under this legislation to do what I ask her to do. So again she's independent from the Legislature.
I know the standing order we got from the House says, "Investigate the Ombudsman." In fact what we're doing is we're supplementing a bill that was passed by a Legislature in the past that tried to make the Ombudsman independent of the political pressures and the political so on and not turn her into a ploy of the government of the day, and I tell you, that's exactly what she thinks, because I read from a speech she made. She says:
"Independence from political pressure, from vested interest, from saying what is expedient rather than what is right. I want to control what you do or decide. The only answer we can possibly have is no" -- that's her comment. "On the one hand, the Legislature set us up as an independent body, but on the other hand, they want to treat us like a government department."
I say, if that's what we're doing, if that's the net result of all this, that we're going to treat the Ombudsman's office as another arm of the government, then let's get rid of it, because there's no point in having it. Quite frankly, I think up to this point, from what I've been reading in the press and so on, we've already destroyed the office. Nobody's going to believe they can get an independent shake.
Clearly these people who have come before us and some of the letters we've got are legitimate complaints, but they're systemic. They're just like complaints about the courts; you can't get a trial date for a year or you can't get on a civil jury list for three years.
Mr Mammoliti: It's more than that, Bob.
The Vice-Chair: George, no. Order.
Mr Callahan: But to a large extent that's what it is. It's systemic. You make the Ombudsman the court of last resort for every individual in this province who can't get recourse through the red tape of government, but in essence you probably overburden it. You've got the Treasurer on the one hand saying, "We want to take money away from the Ombudsman's office," which he's done to every other ministry, so he's treating it like a ministry as well. My understanding and my reading of this act is that this is not an arm of government; it is independent and should remain independent. If it doesn't, then we may as well abolish it.
1520
The Vice-Chair: Mr Callahan, did you have a question for the deputant?
Mr Callahan: I was asked if I had comments or questions. That was my comment. I really have no questions of this lady, because I think she's come forward with a concern that obviously relates to the question of whether or not you were responded to, whether you felt comfortable that the Ombudsman was doing the job for you.
Ms Hutchison: Can I comment, then, on your comments?
Mr Callahan: It may well be that you ran into somebody in the Ombudsman's office who, for want of a better word, was probably not terribly polite. I'll tell you, I'm sure that some days in many of our offices, when we get --
Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I've never seen any member of any committee try to read someone's mind or someone's motives. It's silly to try. Ask her the question, if that's what you want to know.
The Vice-Chair: I think that the deputant --
Interjection.
The Vice-Chair: Excuse me. Order, please. I think the deputant actually has a desire to respond to some of the comments made, and then we will turn to Mr Murdoch.
Ms Hutchison: My comment would be that I think the role of the Ombudsman is very important and that it has to be independent. What I said right at the beginning was that I admitted that I have been affiliated with a particular party. Prior to that, I was independent; I could have been a purple Rhinoceros and would get the same results. In a sense, it's put me at a disadvantage.
The advantage of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Ombudsman --
Interjection.
Ms Hutchison: I'd appreciate it if you'd listen when I'm responding to your comments. You might learn something.
Mr Callahan: I'm sorry. My colleague was just saying something.
Ms Hutchison: I'm horrified that people would phone me and say: "Well, of course, you're with that government. Surely you can help me." I'm just saying that should have nothing to do with it.
These government agencies, just to read what the Ombudsman herself has on the front of her book, "My objective is to give the concepts of fairness and equity closer scrutiny so we can see why they still elude us in a country which considers itself modern, enlightened and democratic," and in spite of the fact that people still think it matters that you can get something done by who you know, whether you can afford a lawyer, whether you are related to the government in power or not, and are quite horrified, in fact, to find that it doesn't seem to matter what government's in power. I still get results from making inquiries. Either an agency has been given money, which is my money -- I pay a lot in taxes, and so does everyone else, to support these agencies. We expect them to operate in a fair, humane and consistent manner. When they don't, then we get excited.
We pay a lot to the Office of the Ombudsman -- $9 million or whatever it is -- to do that job for us. I am a farmer, I have three children, I work on a lot of committees, I'm a writer, and I've a lot of things to do. I am not employed to drive to Toronto today when I could be taking in hay. That's why we employ the Ombudsman to do that, and we expect her to uphold that.
So far I think she has, but perhaps one of the things that has not been looked at and that she has not been given help in is how to make sure that office functions just the way we expect all the other agencies to function and the way she is looking at them and expecting them to function. Perhaps she needs to look at her own office to see whether it even lives up to its own standards.
Or get rid of it if it's not going to be impartial. But I think it is being impartial; I just think there are a few glitches in there. I think it's very important that we have that agency and that, regardless of how governments change or opinions change, there is an agency that looks objectively at the way government operates and makes sure that whether you're --
Mr Callahan: Amen.
Ms Hutchison: -- a lawyer or just a farmer, you'll get the same response. The lawyer wouldn't need the help to make his case to the Ombudsman, but the farmer maybe does.
Mr Murdoch: First of all, I'll make quite clear that maybe we should have Bob Callahan as one of our witnesses, because obviously he hasn't been following our procedures that we've been going by for the last two years.
Mr Mammoliti: Hear, hear.
Mr Murdoch: I have a problem with him saying -- we've said all along that we're not here to take away the Ombudsman's control and have anything to do with what she decides. We've never once -- no one on this whole committee who's been here since I've been here, for two years -- wanted to take away her decision, but somebody has to be responsible for the way it's done.
Just as Margaret -- it's hard to call her Margaret -- Peggy Hutchison has said, there's got to be some accountability here somewhere, and that's what we've been looking for in this committee. Whether it's us or somebody else, that's what this committee wants to know, because we've been frustrated for the last two years. We've had other complaints come to this committee similar to yours, and we've asked for information so that we can see whether the process has been done. Not the end decision; we have no right to have that; that's why the Ombudsman's there. That's what this committee is trying to find out.
Peggy, obviously you were concerned with the way it was being handled; that's what you've pointed out. Did you ever consider maybe coming to this committee and saying, "I'm having trouble with the Ombudsman"? Did you think maybe that's what this committee is here for?
Ms Hutchison: That would have been my next step, because at some point the Ombudsman sent a sheet to us that showed sort of a track -- I think it's somebody on a snowmobile going through the woods -- and gives the different stages: You have a complaint, it's handled or it's not, letters are written to the agency, it's resolved, it goes to an investigator, it carries on and so on.
I wrote and asked: "What do we do when the Ombudsman's putting us through hoops? We're now at stage 3A, and you've closed this file. What about all these other stages where the Ombudsman can make a recommendation to this committee or to the Premier?" I think that's number 10 or whatever it is. If we had not had the meeting last week, I would have come to the committee. On the other hand, I think this committee has a lot of things to do besides handle things the Ombudsman has closed.
That's where my recommendations parallel Mr Gateman's. I was not satisfied that the file was being closed. The letter did not say: "The agency did supply this information. We are satisfied with what their policies or procedures are." It simply said, "The agency says this, and this file's closed." So I would have ended up here.
Maybe that's where the information sheet that I recommended would be sent to somebody, when they start on a course, so that both sides know where they are going and what they can expect the Ombudsman to do or not to do. I mean, you don't tell the Ombudsman what decision to make, but you can certainly say that you think these are the problems that should be investigated. In our case, all along they completely misinterpreted. I'm sure it couldn't have been deliberate, but it almost got to the point where the person who was helping said, "Somebody in that office doesn't want this to come to light." I said, "I'm beginning to agree with you."
Mr Murdoch: That's exactly one of the reasons this committee took on this task of just taking a look at the Ombudsman and the whole setup, which hasn't been done for 17 years, so again, there shouldn't be any problem with it.
I want to make quite clear too that the Ombudsman has been asked to come here. She has refused, and I'm sure she has her reasons. But we have to hear people out, and we have had people like Peggy Hutchison send us letters. We didn't know where to go. We were running into a dead end in the Ombudsman office, as you were and as Mr Gateman was. So we said, "Hey, maybe we should look at the whole thing," and that's all we're trying to do. No one wants to take the responsibility of making decisions. That's the Ombudsman's job, and I don't think anybody wants to take the job away. But we're certainly pleased to have you come here and tell us your problems, and hopefully it'll help solve the big problem we have. We have one big problem here: Does this committee exist or not?
Ms Haeck: Thank you, Ms Hutchison, for a nice thumbnail sketch of what you've encountered. I want to thank Bill also for his thumbnail sketch of our two years. It brings to mind that in one of the recent annual reports -- I think it was just the immediate one; I'm not sure what the number of it is, but 1991. It was very readable in a lot of respects, although we did criticize it for not following through on some of the statistics we would need to look at the operations.
But one of the concerns the office is supposed to be looking at is the issue of delay. We have workers' compensation cases that have been referred to that office; a long delay in getting any kind of resolution to a problem has been seen as a legitimate reason for an investigation. From your standpoint, do you feel that one of the cruxes for you coming here is the issue of delay?
1530
Ms Hutchison: Yes, because this has now gone since February 1991 since the Ombudsman was approached to undertake this. It took them a month to decide whether they would in fact investigate it and carry on with it because it was fairly complicated. That's from February 1991. That's a long delay, and the longer it goes, if her recommendation to the agency is to change its decision -- I mean, somebody is going to have something changed.
Ms Haeck: So in reality, you still do not have any resolution to your problem.
Ms Hutchison: No. We met with the Ombudsman last week and just restated what it is that we've been trying to get through to her and that from her responses -- one of the last letters was, "Do you write your own letters or do you just sign a pile of them?" We wondered whether the information going in could possibly elicit the response that was coming out. From the meeting, the person who was attending the meeting, I realized, was part of the problem.
Ms Haeck: I have one more question which I think really relates also to Mr Gateman's problem. As a complainant, you have the right to get access to your file. This committee has been told that in its investigations of cases that have not been recommended, we can't get that information. But you can, so I'm wondering if you, along with the person you're advocating for, have sought out copies of the investigation. Have you tried to look into your file to see what in fact they have done on your behalf?
Ms Hutchison: I think they've presented everything right up until the report that I say we literally tore apart. That report, I gather, was going to be submitted intact but an additional report was going to be appended to it. I said, "Just to save everybody time and breath, could we see a copy of that just to make sure that you do finally have straight what it is we're talking about?"
But we did not see that report. Simply, the next correspondence was a letter back, "Case is closed." At that point I phoned an assistant to the Ombudsman and explained that, from her response, we felt the correct information still hadn't gotten through to her and we had not seen the report. This person said, "I'd be greatly surprised if you hadn't seen that report," and I said, "Well, be surprised, because we haven't."
We are now requesting an interview with the Ombudsman. Let's stop all this paperwork and back and forth. We can state it in five seconds and just decide whether we're going to carry on with this or whether she's satisfied with what the agency has given her.
Ms Haeck: So to restate, in reality you are not really sure what that office has done on your behalf.
Ms Hutchison: No.
Ms Haeck: As a result of these conversations here today, do you think it would be a course of action that you would consider undertaking, that is, to ask for a copy of what has transpired?
Ms Hutchison: I think so. I don't know what the next stage will be if again the case is going to be closed. Maybe we'll just try another avenue. Well, the next avenue I guess is to come to this committee, if that's appropriate; I don't know.
I hope the Ombudsman's going to make the decision that we had hoped she would. That's why I say I don't want to talk about it, because I don't want to influence her one way or the other.
One of the recommendations -- I've gone through the recommendations of this and I'll write that out and hand it in -- is that unless the complainant authorizes those to be released to this committee or to anyone else, I think they should be left confidential. I've not been authorized to talk about that.
Ms Haeck: Oh, absolutely, so none of us really wants to get into that. I appreciate your comments.
The Chair: Mr Duignan, if you could make it brief, please.
Ms Hutchison: Anyway, thank you very much for letting me come.
The Chair: Mr Duignan, please.
Ms Hutchison: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were dismissing me.
Mr Duignan: I was listening with interest to the last two, yourself and the previous speaker. It was a very interesting report; it was a 1989 report, the review of Ontario's regulatory agencies called the Macaulay report. He made some very interesting observations and recommendations in this report, and I would strongly recommend to the committee members that they read what the Macaulay report has to say on the Ombudsman's office and some of the recommendations that have been made in there. It covers some of the concerns that had been brought up earlier. Again, it also deals with the question of the independence of the Ombudsman's office and it makes reference to the fact that if the Ombudsman is independent there is no supremacy of Parliament, and he goes on to list six indications of why the Ombudsman is not independent. Maybe the committee would want to look at some of those areas too.
One quick question is, you indicated there was some problem within the Ombudsman's office.
Ms Hutchison: I just felt that the information that we were trying to relay was not being relayed, and that's only from the responses that we got, and when we finally had a meeting with the Ombudsman I think it was coming as news to her.
Mr Duignan: Do you know who the individual was, by any chance?
Ms Hutchison: No, I don't want to -- that's what I say, I think --
Mr Mammoliti: You know who it is; you don't want to --
Ms Hutchison: If the Ombudsman only has one person who is an assistant or advising her on matters, maybe it should be broadened. Maybe, as in any sort of office, you need more than one opinion. I think we got the interview from speaking to the secretary, who said, "You do sound frustrated." But I don't think it should happen that way.
The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, you had one quick question, I believe?
Mr Mammoliti: I just wanted to ask who that person was, but obviously she has a problem with letting the committee know.
Ms Hutchison: No, I think it's just in very general terms and I think the Ombudsman herself will review her own office and procedures, hopefully, and maybe that'll be rectified.
The Chair: Any further comments? Seeing none, Ms Hutchison, I want to thank you for taking the time out to appear before us this afternoon.
Ms Hutchison: Thank you.
The Chair: I understand we're waiting for David Warner to appear. Can we have a five-minute recess, please?
The committee recessed at 1537.
1546
BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
The Chair: We have the Honourable David Warner, MPP, Chair, Board of Internal Economy, appearing before us this afternoon. Mr Warner, you have a half-hour. The committee would appreciate it if you would give us some time at the end so that they may ask questions and/or make comments. Begin when you feel comfortable, please.
Hon David Warner (Chair, Board of Internal Economy): First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to be invited by this prestigious committee, an opportunity to reacquaint myself with some of the famous members of the House.
I'm not precisely sure what kind of information you are looking for, so what I will do is take about three minutes to describe the workings of the Board of Internal Economy, if that's of any help, and then we'll take it from there.
That mysterious and wonderful body known as the Board of Internal Economy is the body which oversees the spending of the Legislative Assembly. The board consists of the Chair, who is the Speaker, four members from the government and one member from each of the two opposition parties. By tradition it's been the three House leaders, and then the government can make selections; often it's the chair of caucus and perhaps a private member from caucus and perhaps a cabinet minister, but it doesn't have to be that way.
All of the spending estimates come before the board. Traditionally, what happens is that the person responsible for the estimate -- in the case of committees, usually it's the committee Chair and the clerk -- comes and makes his presentation, and the board members will ask questions.
The presenters will then absent themselves from the room and the board then will either pass the estimate, amend it, or send it back completely, whatever its wish is. In some cases, what it has done is make suggestions while the person was in the room and then just leave the thing in abeyance for a while and allow the committee to make the appropriate adjustments, and then send a piece of paper around to the board members asking them for their approval.
In the case of the Ombudsman, if I recall correctly, she came before the board and made her presentation, as all the other officers of the assembly do -- there are six officers. Some questions were asked, mostly around the context of budget restraint, as: "Would it be possible to take a look at your budget and to make any further reductions" -- she had already made some reductions -- "say, in the non-staff side of things? Would that be possible?" But it was stressed at the board that the board recognized that the officers of the House are independent of government and that they are at arm's length from government. Therefore, what the board is doing would be to make requests with respect to budgets, because there is the fairly obvious danger, because the board ultimately controls the budget, of the board then directing the activities of the officers of the House. That's not something which the board, or indeed any member, really wants to do. So there are requests made.
The Ombudsman then went away, made some adjustments and those adjustments then were sent, by way of what's called pre-approval form, to the seven -- well, six board members; the Speaker does not vote except in the case of a tie. It went to those other members, the six members, which is the standard way; the six agree. I should add that in all of that process, the budget-setting and approval, it's been customary for some time to try to reach a consensus to avoid split votes on the question of budgets. It seems to work that way and it has worked. In this case, with the Ombudsman, there wasn't any particular problem.
That's, in a nutshell, the way in which the board functions. Then it simply publishes the results which are then public knowledge. They're available to everyone: the members, the press, the general public. That's it.
The Chair: Comments or questions?
Mr Murdoch: I have two questions to start off with. I hope we'll just go around and we don't have to use all our time. Mr Warner, my first question would be: In your mind, what do you think the standing committee on the Ombudsman is set up for? What were we set up for, our standing committee?
Hon Mr Warner: The committee has an interesting history, has interesting members, but that aside, originally this committee was set up as a select committee, quite candidly, for two reasons. One was because the office was new to Ontario, hence it was kind of mutual assistance to Mr Maloney, who was the first Ombudsman, and the members to try to work their way through the initial stages of having the office. It was a very useful function.
Second, because the number one issue of the day was an airport, which involved a lot of work by the Ombudsman at the time, in the north Pickering area, it was going to occupy a fair bit of time of both the Ombudsman and a committee, therefore a select committee was established.
The Ombudsman at that time issued a lot of reports, which is quite understandable because the office was new. I think as a result of so many reports being issued it was felt that there was a sufficient workload that would necessitate turning that select committee into a standing committee. Hence that was done. That's only my observation of history; somebody else might have a different view of it.
Periodically reports have come forward. But I think, quite understandably, the longer the office is around, the less need there is for a lot of reports. The committee then has to try to establish what it sees as its best cooperative working relationship between the public and the Office of the Ombudsman.
Mr Murdoch: I'll put a supplementary to my first question. I have a second one, but I don't want to lose my space.
We have the Ombudsman now. She makes a decision. We understand here that we're not here to change any decisions or defer a decision. But if someone complains to us, to this committee -- and we've heard two already today, but we've had other complaints -- that he felt that the process wasn't proper, do we have the right then to look into that process, nothing to do with the outcome but the process? This is where we're caught.
Hon Mr Warner: To be honest with you, I'm not really sure.
Mr Murdoch: We're going to have to find out.
Hon Mr Warner: Committees always have the ability to make reports to the House, regardless of what task you're about, this committee or any other committee. In some cases with respect to the workings of the Office of the Ombudsman, the committee may feel it's appropriate to issue a report to the House.
I think, quite frankly, the relationship between the committee and the Office of the Ombudsman is one that has never been made very clear, just as the reporting mechanism for the officers of the assembly has not been made very clear except in a couple of instances. The Chief Election Officer is obliged to submit a report following an election. That's it. There's no other reporting that's required.
Second, there is nothing written down as to what's to happen to that report. The same is true of all the reports, from the public auditor or anybody else. There is an obligation in some instances to report, but there is no obligation to actually have the report dealt with by a committee or by the House.
My personal view of it is that's a flaw. I think that when an officer is reporting, there should be an obligation for the House, either as committee of the whole or a specific committee, to deal with that report. We use the term "debate," but it may be more of a discussion with, hopefully, some consensus-building with respect to that report. Just to leave a report to collect dust, it seems to me is not particularly useful. But we've never nailed that down.
In fairness, at one time there were no officers of the House and we now have six. Over time we've added on and on, so now perhaps it's appropriate to take a look at the reporting mechanism. When do they report, what do they report on and what will be done to the report when it arrives?
Mr Murdoch: Things seem vague and after 17 years maybe this is the time for this review. I think that in the Ombudsman Act she has to file a report once a year, to someone, as you say. What about the report we've just received and the special report to the Legislature? Are you going to give it any due regard?
Hon Mr Warner: My role is very clear and very simple, fortunately. I simply receive it. In this case, when the House isn't sitting, reports by any committees go to the Clerk. They are deemed to be tabled. When the House resumes, then I will simply announce that on a certain date a certain report was tabled. The moment it's tabled, of course, it then becomes public knowledge and is available to all the members. My only role in it is to ensure that no one receives the report ahead of somebody else, that all the members receive it at the same time and that members get it before the press. I think that's extremely important.
Mr Murdoch: That's not the case with this report, though. The press --
Interjection.
Mr Murdoch: I was going to say, maybe this one won't be given due regard, because I think the press had this one before we did.
Hon Mr Warner: We'll have to take a look at the system.
Mr Murdoch: I think so, because the press had this report before we did.
Hon Mr Warner: In theory, all the members should receive their document. The process is such that the only way for us to actually deliver the report is to put it in the mailbox downstairs. If the member happens to be away, fine, the press are in the building; they will get it the same day or that afternoon when it's gone to the members in the morning. If they're not in the building, then obviously they're not going to be aware of it.
Mr Murdoch: Some other questions for someone else.
Mr Curling: Maybe we should pursue the report and maybe get a better understanding, because if you understand how the reports are made -- take, for instance, the annual report. Maybe I should go back a bit. The reason I think all this came about was that two years ago when we were reviewing the annual report of the Ombudsman, I think we had two. We hadn't even dealt with the year before, so they decided to deal with two of those annual reports. But when we sat with that, we felt like the dog who chases the car. We caught the car and then we didn't know what to do with it.
We decided to look at the report and then decided: "What are we going to do with this? Then we'll call the Ombudsman in." We found out, as you're saying now, that having looked at the report, we then make a presentation to you and say, "We have seen the report, Mr Speaker," and then we present it to you.
Let's go back a bit now. While we were doing that, and you knew that we were doing that as a committee, what did you expect of us to come forward with? Either that they were busy just looking at it and the recommendation coming forward: "We're not going to do anything with it," or --
1600
Mr Mammoliti: What a guy.
Hon Mr Warner: As much as I may have an interest in any of these subject matters, the relationship is between the committee and the House, not the Speaker, so that when you have deliberated on a report, then you're going to report to the House. The House will decide what it wants to do, if anything. But there isn't a specific role for the Speaker in that connection.
Mr Curling: I don't want to be facetious. I was wondering, while we were doing all that -- even sometimes when we have a budget coming up in the summer, we want to know what we're going to do. We have to justify our action and even bring in the Ombudsman to the committee, justifying why we're here. It seems to me that doing all that was an exercise in futility. Nothing is going to happen. The Ombudsman can refuse to come before us. We don't see as a committee whether we serve any purpose.
My question then, knowing all that you said, that there were no decisions or any decision made on what we do with a report when it comes before us, would you recommend that we abandon, abolish this standing committee on the Ombudsman?
Hon Mr Warner: Well, I don't know whether it's my place to make recommendations. The committee will want to discuss that matter itself. I do think there's a useful role for the Ombudsman's committee, but it probably is most effective when it works in concert with the person who is currently the Ombudsman.
Its role perhaps needs to be more clearly defined. That means tackling the legislation, the actual act, which of course means that it would have to be introduced in the House by the government. There would have to be a debate in the House in order to change the Ombudsman Act to clarify the relationship between the committee and the Ombudsman. Perhaps that's a useful exercise.
My observation is that over the years, the committee has served a useful function, but quite naturally, as the office has evolved, then perhaps the role of the committee changes too. At the outset, when it was a select committee and it was starting everything up, the main purpose was to try and find the best way to set up the Office of the Ombudsman. That's quite understandable. Its second function was to try and assist with getting the office going and to deal with a couple of the major problems. The role of the committee now is probably different. I guess the way it sits right now is that the committee serves as a committee to offer advice.
Mr Curling: To whom?
Hon Mr Warner: To the Ombudsman.
Mr Curling: But she won't come.
Ms Akande: Sends us a letter.
Mr Curling: My last question: I know you were anxious --
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, that is your advice and I'm going to ask you for suggestions. While we decide if we should look to change the Ombudsman Act, which a minister, or the Attorney General, would put forward -- it was tried already and I don't think it passed first reading anyhow, previously -- while we're doing that and since we report to you basically, because the fact is that any report we have, when we present it to the House, is to the Speaker really, what advice would you give us on how to operate now?
Hon Mr Warner: Again, I'm not sure that you really need advice from me, because I really believe that committees have to wrestle with these questions themselves --
Mr Curling: We have been.
Hon Mr Warner: -- and hopefully come up with unanimous agreement and a consensus.
I think there is a problematic question when you take a look at the relationship between a committee and the Ombudsman. Committees, as we have them structured, are always controlled by the government of the day in numbers, so there's always a public perception that in the final analysis, the government of the day will get its way in a committee, and barring a few exceptions, that has been the case over so many decades.
At the same time, this committee is different from other committees in that the Ombudsman is an officer of the assembly and hence enjoys an independent relationship, is at arm's length, and should not in any way be seen as a government department. How do you balance off this power of the majority in a committee against the interest, the quite legitimate and valid interest, of having the Ombudsman at arm's length from the government if for no other reason than public perception?
It's a tough question, and I realize that; not insurmountable. Maybe in the case of the Ombudsman, the committee would want to look at a different balance for its committee in terms of numbers.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Curling. Mr Mammoliti, please.
Mr Mammoliti: I'm next, am I, Mr Chair? Thank you. Welcome. I'd like to know a couple of things, Mr Warner.
I think we've already established accountability, and we've all, I think, recognized that the Ombudsman is not accountable to this committee. I believe the Ombudsman should be, to a degree. I believe the hands-off approach has to be there, but I also believe the Ombudsman thinks that perhaps the Ombudsman isn't accountable to anybody except the Ombudsman, and I think that's wrong.
I'd like you to answer this question: To whom is the Ombudsman's office accountable? Is it the Board of Internal Economy? Is it the Premier? Is it this committee? Is it the Speaker of the House? This question still exists and I'd like to just verify it before I ask my next question, if we could.
Hon Mr Warner: I don't want to beg the question, but I think you would have to define "accountable." In what way?
The Ombudsman, while clearly independent of the government, is fiscally accountable to the public auditor. The auditor will do the auditing both in terms of fiscal responsibility, but what is more popular these days -- certainly with the auditor it's popular -- is to do what I think is called "value for money" audits. In the programs that we're paying for, are you getting value for the money that you're putting in? It's a performance type of evaluation. The auditor is doing those kinds of audits with agencies, including the Ombudsman, so the Ombudsman clearly is accountable from a fiscal standpoint.
The funds for the operation come from the Board of Internal Economy. I can assure you that at the board -- I think it was in June or July when we looked at the Ombudsman's estimates -- the point was made that yes, we don't want to do anything to interfere or to be seen to be interfering in any way, shape or form with the independence of the office.
The board had, quite naturally, an interest in trying to conserve money, and it was asking every agency to take a hard look at its budget to see if there were ways that it could trim. If I'm not mistaken, the Ombudsman's office came up with about a 10% reduction over last year, as did other agencies. I mean, they all came in with reduced budgets. So there is a form of accountability that way.
1610
I guess ultimately, built into the act -- Mr Callahan is, I think, the authority on the act -- is that the Ombudsman can be removed for cause from office. The term of office is 10 years, if I'm not mistaken. The appointment is by the assembly, which really means, usually, the government of the day, but I believe, by tradition, with discussions with the two opposition leaders to ensure that the selection will be one that isn't going to be opposed in the House, so that you've got a person who is acceptable to all three parties.
Having said that, the ultimate responsibility is to the public at large, it seems to me, as far as I know.
Mr Mammoliti: Okay, so she's accountable to the public at large. One of my concerns -- I've made it very clear throughout my two years on the committee anyway -- is the amount of internal complaints we've been getting as well. She's accountable to the public at large, and we find that there's a problem internally. I mean, ultimately that could be disastrous if we don't get to the root of the problem.
If this committee isn't accountable in that area internally, in terms of process and all that, then frankly I've got a little bit of a problem with that and think we probably have to address that in our recommendations later. That's not for you to say, but I recognize that.
The other point I want to mention is the report itself. Apparently it costs $25,000. If the Ombudsman is fiscally accountable, perhaps you can explain to me why the report at this time and why so much.
Hon Mr Warner: That's not an appropriate question for me. You should ask that of the Ombudsman. All I can tell you is that any officer of the House has the right to issue reports whenever the officer feels it's necessary to issue a report. My only function is to simply receive the report and ensure that the proper procedure has been followed in terms of tabling and that, as I mentioned, all members have received it supposedly ahead of the media. But in this case it didn't happen. Members should be the first people to receive reports.
Mr Owens: Not having been a member of this committee for the past two years that have been described, I found that, in light of the meeting we had with you, Speaker, at the end of the last meeting of our Legislative Assembly committee where we discussed -- I guess, in passing, you had met with the Office of the Legislative Assembly and it had indicated it was looking for a process where it could not only present its reports, as you've indicated, have them tabled, but ensure that there's some type of action, one of those people being the Ombudsman, Roberta Jamieson.
Coming into the subcommittee and finding that we're at this great impasse in trying to have the Ombudsman attend the committee hearings, I guess we have to be very careful about language like "accountability" and "reporting relationship" and things like that, simply because of the impartiality of the office. The Ombudsman, as an officer of the Legislature, reports to you. Would it not be more appropriate to have the issues around that office perhaps dealt with by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, as referred by you?
I think Mr Callahan or some other member opposite may have hit the nail on the head that perhaps this committee may have served a purpose at one point, but in the current generation of the Legislative Assembly, perhaps another body, be it the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, should deal with the issues.
Hon Mr Warner: First, you're right in terms of what I mentioned to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. It's been my feeling for some time that there's a lot of important and good work that's done by the officers of the House. Oft-times they produce reports and then the reports just seem to go into some black hole; we never see them again. I really think this does a disservice to those officers who toil quite hard and long on behalf of the public, on behalf of the assembly.
In the case of the public auditor, it's a little easier in that there's an automatic relationship between the public auditor and the standing committee on public accounts; it's even spelled out in the legislation, if I'm not mistaken. But that's not the case with the election officer, with the Commission on Election Finances, with Judge Evans, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner.
My only point was, regardless of who deals with it -- and I think each of the six should be dealt with separately -- decide that, number one, a principle will be that a report that is issued by the officer will be discussed. It can be discussed in the House. If you want to allocate, put it in the standing orders. You allocate a specific time when reports are going to be dealt with. Or it can be dealt with by a particular committee; it can be a standing committee. You can establish a select committee with a very specific mandate that it will meet certain weeks once a year or whatever; those are logistics.
All I'm saying is adopt a principle that the officers will report on a certain basis and that those reports will be dealt with, and then deal with the specifics about this committee and whether or not it should continue to exist, and if it does, what it's relationship should be.
As you go through that and if you're able to work that out in harmony with the Ombudsman, then you come up against the question of whether or not you need to make any changes to the act. Maybe you can work out some kind of relationship between the committee and the Ombudsman without changing the act, but just so that it's clear and it's understandable.
Obviously, and I'm very sensitive to this, I realize that the question that all members come up against is whether or not what I say or do will have an impact on the independence of the office or if it will be perceived by the public as interfering in some way. Is the heavy hand of government now a stamp on that office? I realize that all members in the assembly are aware of that and they're sensitive to that, and that's the way it should be. But knowing that, you then have to work out the relationship. That's a tough one, and I acknowledge it's a tough one.
1620
Mr Owens: In my view, the questions I would like to see answered in terms of case load and tracking systems to ensure that cases are being done as expeditiously as possible I'm really trying to struggle with. How do you get that kind of information when the person who holds that information won't attend at your committee? I think these are very non-partisan questions we're trying to understand here.
Hon Mr Warner: I don't know that you need me to instruct you about what the committee's capable of doing. Your clerk is certainly well aware and can advise you as to what's available to the committee.
Mr Owens: We discussed that earlier.
Mr Callahan: Mr Speaker, you've touched on something I think is important in terms of whether this act works and how it works. First of all, if you look at the act, the only teeth in it are that the Ombudsman can investigate the minister's decision or the bureaucrats' decision and they're given a chance to respond. If the response is not good enough, then they can tattle to the Premier. That's really what the act comes down to.
Over the years, I think it was Dr Hill who, without any requirement of the act or even anything of the Legislature, used to bring cases to this committee that couldn't be solved. That's how they started coming here, as I recall, and we would put them in our report. We'd put them in our report and it would be brought to the House and, as you say, it would get sucked up into the black hole. Nobody would ever debate it.
What in fact happened was that the ministers and the bureaucrats who had screwed up and were reported in our findings in our report never had any censure because nobody ever heard about it. It got shoved into the little drawer of wherever those reports go to. So you may have hit on a very significant point here.
I don't know how we do it, because I think everything in this place works on the basis of accountability. We're accountable to the public. If we screw up, we won't get re-elected. I think there has to be accountability here too, in that if you're going to have an act and you're going to tell the public out there through this act that the Ombudsman is the court of last resort, you have to do a number of things. You have to make certain that they're going to have some teeth, which I submit they don't have at the moment, particularly if there's no report debated in the House and nobody ever receives any censure for what they did do or they didn't do.
The second thing is that if it's just a circular -- it's almost like a dog chewing its tail, because when it finally gets back to the Premier, if the Premier of the day, of whatever political stripe, decides, "Hey, that's rocky road. I'm not going to mention that or let that out of the bag, because one of my ministers has really screwed up," nothing happens. You come to a dead end.
The accountability, I think, would be if the report had to be debated in the Legislature, so that names would be used and you'd say the minister of whatever did this or this and didn't do this. Then there's accountability. The public gets to hear it, and the Premier of the day is then going to have to do the same thing he does in question period.
I'm not trying to be partisan here, believe me. If questions start being asked of a minister, that's sort of getting to the point where it's risky, you can either adjourn the Legislature or you can get rid of the minister. But I think that's what our whole system works on, accountability.
Quite frankly, the more I look at this act, I feel sorry for the Ombudsman, because I think he or she who occupies that office is probably trying to do a good job for people. All they're doing is sending the same letters we do to ministers of whatever political stripe and maybe not getting answers. It's very frustrating. So I think the act needs that.
Subsection 15(1) of the existing act allows the assembly to make general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his or her functions under the act. Maybe that's where we start, by setting some guidelines, but at the same time we have to put some responsibility on the part of the government to make sure that it has to respond to it.
I mean, we did a great thing in that report of the standing committee on public accounts. Was it ever debated in the House? I think the public is going to catch on to us one of these days. They're going to say: "You do all these reports. You travel around and spend megabucks to do it, and the report never sees the light of day and never gets debated in the House." I think that's a message that has to go out to whatever party is in power, that you've got to stop that.
I guess I make those observations. They're really not questions, they're rhetorical, but I think you've put your finger on something that is important, that if that report were debated in the House, if there were a sessional day for each report of each committee so they at least hear on television what the committee had done and let people comment on it and so on, then you put the pressure, an accountability, on the government of the day to call that as a matter of business for legislation or whatever.
Mr Duignan: Basically on the same topic, you alluded to the fact that there are six officers of the assembly who make reports, and really nothing happens to that. I know you have in fact written to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for it to review this and to look at ways of how we can improve the system and make those reports either debatable or whatever may happen to them; hopefully, the committee will begin to look at that task in the fall.
But also under standing order 104(h), which deals with the formation of this particular committee, couldn't you in fact change the standing orders? Couldn't the standing orders be changed to make reports debatable in the House, from this committee or any other committee?
Hon Mr Warner: Yes. There are different ways of accomplishing it. One is to change standing orders, which would compel a debate of a report. Picking up on what Mr Callahan said, rather than making it a responsibility of the government, I'd make it a responsibility of the House. That means standing orders; that it's in the standing orders.
You can specify the report of the Ombudsman, the report of the Provincial Auditor, the report of the election finances commissioner and so on and that they will be dealt with, and you can build in that this report will be dealt with by a particular committee, this one will be dealt with by the House, this one we will allocate a specific time, as Mr Callahan mentioned, that kind of thing. But you can do it in the standing orders, sure.
Mr Duignan: In fact, the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly is empowered, either of itself or by a direction by yourself or indeed by a direction of the House, to review standing orders. For example, this committee could write a letter to the Legislative Assembly committee recommending that maybe this should be the approach that should be taken to debate the standing committee on the Ombudsman's report, or in fact any report from any committee.
Mr Ramsay: As you know, I'll inform the Speaker, we had a very thorough review by our researcher-counsel Paul Murray, who's here with us this morning. One of the things that came up was the Macaulay report as being one of the reviews that was done in 1989 of all government agencies. Mr Duignan had actually asked my colleague if we have that today. I believe all the members now have that report; I would refer all the members to that. I would hope that in the next two weeks we could find the time to really have the basic discussion about what I think we're embarking upon here, that is, the difference between independence and accountability.
Mr Macaulay's report, on page 6-8, really starts to spell that out:
"The Office of the Ombudsman is said to be `independent' of the executive" -- that's another differentiation between the executive and the Legislative Assembly -- "but at the same time is `accountable' to the Legislature. What should be observed, as I have said elsewhere, `independence' and `accountability' are quite different. When the word `independence' is used, at most it means `independence of decision-making'" -- I'm sure all my colleagues here agree with that principle in regard to the Ombudsman Act -- "and not `independence of action.' The Ombudsman, like many administrative agencies, ought to be `independent in his decision-making'" -- as it was written at the time when there was a man in that position -- "but he cannot be `independent of action,' otherwise he is unaccountable."
There has to be accountability for $9 million-plus of the taxpayers' money and it's only through the Legislature, and through this committee to the Legislature, to the people of Ontario, that that accountability is there.
1630
Macaulay goes on and states quite frankly in the bold print at about the middle of that page:
"May I say at once that the Ombudsman is not independent. If the Ombudsman is independent then there is no supremacy of Parliament." I think that's a very important principle, and we need to discuss that later on.
This is backed up by six statements, which we maybe could discuss at another time, that Macaulay brings forward to defend that principle. He sums up by saying, "Thus, clearly the Ombudsman is not only a servant of the Legislature, but he is not independent and is accountable."
I think we need to have a discussion some time in these two weeks. If we have agreement that those are the founding principles -- because we seem to be floundering around a little bit about what our role is, and how independent and how accountable the ombudsperson is, if you will, as we deal with that terminology. I think we have to get to the nub of the problem.
It's going to be very difficult for us to go beyond looking at legislation and how we're going to bring it into the 1990s -- whatever changes; broadening of scope, if that's what's required -- until we really, I think, settle upon the founding principles of what the relation is between that office and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.
Hon Mr Warner: Yes, I agree with you. From my perspective, the best way to make that happen is when the committee can deal with it in an obvious attempt to reach consensus around the process and can do it in concert with the Ombudsman; always, as you've very clearly stated, assuring the public that there is no intention here for interference with the independence to make decisions.
Mr Ramsay: That's correct.
Hon Mr Warner: Otherwise, the public loses faith in having a neutral body to which a person can go with a complaint about government. If you lose that, you've lost a lot. The office was set up with the purpose in mind of serving the public in a way that the public could have trust that a complaint would be investigated in an independent fashion and that government would not hide anything when the investigation was taking place, that it would be an honest effort to get a resolution of the problem; noting of course that not all problems are going to be solved and not everybody is going to be happy, because that's the nature of handling complaints.
I don't envy your task, but it has to be done, it seems to me, otherwise the committee doesn't function well, the Ombudsman is unhappy, nobody is happy with the results and the public maybe loses faith in the whole process and in the Office of the Ombudsman, and that would be a tragedy. You're right, tackle this in the report. I haven't read the report, but it seems to me it's probably a good basis to start on.
Ms Haeck: Thank you, Mr Warner; I'm going to call you David because I'm more used to that. I'm not sure you've had a chance to really look at the Ombudsman's special report. On page 2, close to the second-last paragraph, she makes reference to the public relations campaign, the merry-go-round of Queen's Park. I know you're aware that a number of members on all sides of the House had expressed some concern about it.
She also makes reference to the fact that: "This information was fully presented in a special presentation to the Board of Internal Economy of the Legislature. In the end, I do not know the basis for the negative comments."
I am aware of comments coming from people like Dianne Poole, who raised the issue in a member's statement. I understand, from being at the luncheon you sponsored where we all had a chance to question the six officers of the Legislature, that Hugh O'Neil in fact raised this very issue with the Ombudsman.
I myself returned the posters and have never used them and will not use them. I concur with Miss Poole. I feel that I and my office work exceedingly hard to achieve the best results for my constituents and if and when I come up to a large obstacle, which does happen on occasion, I have no hesitancy to refer that constituent to the Ombudsman's office, so I don't view it in the same way.
I guess my general sense of the public view is that they'd just like to get their situation resolved. They're not always as worried about impartiality, maybe, as the legal minds or some other folks might be. They basically want to get their situations taken care of as expeditiously as possible and not in 14 years, as we have heard from at least one presenter before us.
I'm wondering, when the budget is brought forward to the Board of Internal Economy, what kind of analysis is done. We have $25,000 spent on this, which was in my estimation probably not an ad hoc expenditure, because it does take some time to get these things to a printer and prepared and all those kinds of things, as well as the estimated $250,000 for the merry-go-round public relations campaign. Were there questions asked on those expenditure proposals, and what kinds of answers did you get? Are you free to discuss those very questions?
Hon Mr Warner: The board dealt with the Ombudsman in two separate ways, first, with the budget estimate when it was brought forward and, second, with the advertising campaign. That was on a separate occasion.
With the budget estimate, Ms Jamieson came in and made her presentation. There were a number of questions from members, basically fairly standard questions around staff complement and whether it would increase, merit pay, salary increases and so on, and whether it would be possible to chop any more money. That was essentially it.
I think the board -- I hate to speak for other members, because there are six board members and they all ask questions. Maybe they viewed it as the auditor does the auditing of program and how money's spent, whether or not you get value for your money and whether it's appropriately spent or misappropriated etc. That's the public auditor's job, so no one wants to second-guess that, and it's in capable hands.
Looking at the overall budget: Is the overall budget in line? Is it necessary to add staff? Is it possible to hold the line on increasing the staff? Is it possible to hold the line to the standard 2% or 3% salary increase? Is it possible to effect savings somewhere in the operation? All those questions were answered in the affirmative, so that was how the budget was dealt with.
On the advertising campaign, the Board of Internal Economy wanted whatever information the Ombudsman could share about the campaign: why it was generated, how it was put together, who put it together and so on. She answered all those questions and that was the end of it. The board said, "Fine, thank you very much."
It's a tricky line. Certainly the three House leaders and the other members, the government members here on the board, made Ms Jamieson very aware that they didn't want to ask questions that in any way would appear that they were trying to interfere with her right to run her office and to do her job, but they were asking about the advertising campaign because a number of members had raised concerns.
You're right: We had that meeting; we had two of them, actually. All six officers were there. It was an opportunity for private members to ask questions and get to know the officers of the assembly -- we all know Judge Evans; we all get to see him at least once a year -- but to know the other officers and what they do, what service they provide and so on. So it was very useful in that context.
A number of members asked Ms Jamieson about the advertising campaign, and she responded to them and answered their questions. In my observation some were satisfied, some weren't, but she did answer the questions as posed, and similarly when she came before the board she answered the board members' questions and that was the end of it.
1640
Ms Haeck: If I can pursue this one step further: I don't have all the staffing figures in front of me, but I know that at least this committee is aware there has been some substantial staff turnover in the last couple of years, and in fact, one office has not been well staffed for some time, until quite recently. Is that something that the Board of Internal Economy is aware of and would ask some pointed questions about? We're all interested in service to the public, that's obviously what we provide all the time -- or at least try to -- and if you are aware of these situations, would you take that on as a route for questioning?
Hon Mr Warner: You'd have to ask the board. I don't know what the response would be. Traditionally, what the board does when one of the officers or the assembly itself comes before the board with a request for staffing, then the board will ask for justification: "Why are you wanting to turn this job into a permanent job? Why are you wanting to add complement?" If the person can't satisfy the board that there's a legitimate reason for this that's very pressing, then the board says, "No, we're not increasing staff."
Ms Haeck: So you're not aware of, say, an increase in severance packages or the fact that there may be vacancies there for an exceedingly long time, or how service might be provided if --
Hon Mr Warner: Not necessarily, no. The question of severance would be a bit different. If there was some problem with respect to severances or salaries, that might find its way to the board, but it would be up to one of the board members to ask to put it on the agenda to begin with and there would be a discussion of it.
Ms Haeck: So really, again, a broader awareness would have to be there so that this --
Hon Mr Warner: Yes, and the board would want to know whether this was an internal matter or something that deserved their attention, and again, obviously being sensitive to the question, if it's purely an administrative matter then does it really belong before the board or is it really the responsibility of the Office of the Ombudsman. The same is true of all the other agencies, including the public auditor. The public auditor came before the board, presented his figures and was asked to cut back, and indeed did.
Interjection.
Hon Mr Warner: With fear and trepidation, members suggested that he cut back a bit. As I say, it was, in a way, a difficult process but a very rewarding one. At the end, every single agency had reduced its budget, including the assembly, of course. I don't know if that's any help to you.
Ms Haeck: It does clarify at least how things evolve, which explains why maybe some situations have happened and why we may now find ourselves asking some questions and really not getting the answers from the Ombudsman's office. Generally it's just sort of fallen into the black hole.
Hon Mr Warner: Sure.
Mr Villeneuve: I won't be too long. Mr Speaker, the Board of Internal Economy seem to have the almighty power here in that they can dictate or they can suggest funding and budgets, but they would not have the mechanisms that this committee -- as a committee of the Ombudsman -- has. Would you agree with that?
Hon Mr Warner: The mechanisms? In what way?
Mr Villeneuve: Mechanisms for hearing some of the problems of constituents.
Hon Mr Warner: Oh, yes. The board's function is primarily financial, fiscal, to take a look at the budgets. There are other matters that are brought before the board, complaints by individual members with respect to carrying out their duties, so occasionally there's a question raised in the House about some member's householder and whether it had appropriate material in it etc. That kind of thing comes before the board, but other than that, no, the board is not going to be dealing with the kinds of things that this committee would deal with or that the standing committee on public accounts would deal with, with respect to the public auditor, or the Legislative Assembly committee deals with the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
Mr Villeneuve: Accountability is always important -- accountability for money, of course, and the Provincial Auditor and the Board of Internal Economy. But accountability to the public at large, I think, is most important, and I think this is what's basically being discussed right now. We've had some people in today who explained to us some of the problems -- I think we need to hear that -- and the existence of this committee has been questioned.
I say accountability has to go back to the public, be it through a committee of the Ombudsman, be it standing or select, or a committee of the Legislative Assembly. If indeed it's possible to be non-partisan in this place, I think both of those committees would tend to be non-partisan. I've been around here for almost nine years and I've noticed that under governments of three different parties, and I respect that. The perception out there is always that, well, you're always political. Well, we can be otherwise from time to time. I think we've assisted the Ombudsman, and it may not have been the present Ombudsman, but in the case of Farm Q -- I recall that one very distinctly because I was involved as a substitute member. I think it was only right, because the Ombudsman's office went as far as it could and then it came back to this committee. Again, after a lot of deliberation, recommendations came forth. That's an example of why I think this committee, or something similar to it under Legislative Assembly or somewhere else -- so accountability, I think, is number one.
I'm disappointed with the Ombudsman's letter here because a position of conflict has been taken with this committee, and it was never intended that way. I think what we have to look for here is this committee being complementary to the Ombudsman, and the modus operandi being where we can suggest improvements and where people indeed have the opportunity of coming and saying, "These were my experiences." Of course, satisfied customers are not likely to come, and that's fair game; that's why we're here.
So in your opinion this committee very much has a legitimate place, and if indeed it's not this committee, then I would strongly recommend, strictly because of accountability to the public, that it be looked at by Legislative Assembly or a select committee.
Could I have your comments? It's a leading question, but those are my feelings.
Hon Mr Warner: I don't want to appear either repetitive or evasive, but this is a standing committee of the assembly; that's in our orders. It's there; it exists. I'm a strong believer that committees should be, as much as possible, in control of their own agendas. Committees should have the opportunity to discuss among themselves how they see and define their role.
The committees are responsible to the House. If the committee goes off on a tangent, then the House will bring it back. The committee gets working, and when a committee goes off the rails a little bit the House will put it back, so there is a check and a balance.
This committee will have to find its own way in terms of how it sees the mandate within the standing orders. My only observation is that the role of the committee has changed from its inception, when it was first a select committee, to this date. That's natural. There's nothing wrong with that. Indeed, I suspect that the role of the committee will change over the next decade, as indeed, perhaps, all of our roles change.
In a previous Parliament there were no constituency offices. Members were called upon on occasion to help constituents, but they had no staff and there was precious little way to assist a person, other than down here. In fact, if you go back a little further, as Bob Nixon will tell you, you always came to work with a supply of nickels so you could go out and use the pay phone to call some of the government ministries on behalf of your constituents and call back your constituent.
We've gone to the route now where the members are ombudsmen in their own constituencies. You have all kinds of constituents come in with problems, and every member does his or her best to help their constituents and you act as an Ombudsman. At some point you reach a stage where you say: "I can't help you any more and I'm going to suggest that you go and see, maybe, the Ombudsman or maybe somebody else or the workers' advisers with the Workers' Compensation Board, or you might have to go and see a legal aid lawyer. You might have to see somebody. But I've tried to help you and I can't help you any further." So the members' roles have changed, the officers' roles have changed and indeed the committees' roles have changed. All I'm saying is that as we go through that, in turn we should look at our committee structure: the size of the committee, the composition of the committee, what it does, how many committees we have and what their functions are.
1650
I know this is out of context in a way, but just one observation: The two largest single budget items we have for any government are Health and Education. We do not have a committee to deal with either. I'm puzzled by that, but anyway, that's the way it is. Twenty years ago there was probably no need to have a Health committee, but things change, and as they do, then the parliaments have a responsibility to change as well. It's in this context that you have to wrestle with the question about the existence of the committee, its function, its role and its relationship to the Ombudsman.
The best of all worlds is to have a concerted effort between all the members on the committee and the Ombudsman working together cooperatively to come up with a consensus on this relationship. In so doing, you'll have to take a look at the Ombudsman Act and you'll have to take a look at the standing orders to see whether or not you might recommend any changes.
Mr Villeneuve: I see this as very much part of the job of this committee. It's a bit like having members set their own salaries. We've always been a difficult situation to deal with. I think we're here to assist the Ombudsman in doing the work that has to be done from that office to facilitate -- I'm sure there are times when the Ombudsman reaches, as in Farm Q, a situation where he or she cannot handle it any more, and it comes back to the committee, rightly or wrongly, and a decision is taken. I think that's the reason for this committee to exist and the reason why it must continue in one form or another.
The Chair: Mr Perruzza, could you please make it brief.
Mr Perruzza: Again, I apologize. This is my first day here and I don't have a very full understanding of the Ombudsman and the office, but I have read very quickly through the act today.
My question will actually be shaped in the form of an opinion-seeker of the Speaker, to ask him very directly if he thinks it is appropriate to essentially have an individual -- and I agree with him that the Ombudsman's office should be something independent from government and certainly beyond reproach if it is to work as it's mandated and set out in the act. I think that's the way it should be.
But I also feel that, in some way, there should be some kind of accounting mechanism. It seems that through the budgetary process there is some accounting, but it's not the kind of accounting that I think any government or any elected body would be satisfied with, given the importance of this particular office and given that the Ombudsman is appointed for 10-year terms. I suspect that only under very extreme circumstances can the Ombudsman actually be removed from office or questioned in any way. They can basically use discretion to take on and tackle any issue they deem fit and pursue it as far as they deem fit and recommend whatever they deem they should be recommending to whatever. And rightly, as my colleague from the Liberal Party was very perceptive in assessing, the buck will ultimately stop either in the minister's office or in the Premier's office in terms of any report or recommendation or opinion that's generated by the Ombudsman.
Given that, my question to you, Mr Speaker, is: Do you think that it is an appropriate thing to continue with the Office of the Ombudsman, or should we be pursuing other venues or establish a process or structure whereby the Office of the Ombudsman is held more accountable to the Legislature and to this committee?
Hon Mr Warner: Obviously this is a fundamental question which the committee is going to wrestle with. All I can do is offer you my observation that it was seen there was a need identified for the office to be established, as it has been established in many countries around the world. The assembly did its best, I think, in a very non-partisan way, to find the kind of office arrangement that would meet the needs of the people of Ontario. It looked at how the Ombudsman functioned in various countries and tailored all that information to our situation in the province of Ontario and established the office.
I don't see that the need has disappeared, but because over time things change, obviously you have to change with them, and so you're always doing program evaluation. Companies do it, governments do it; indeed members, I'm sure, do it. My office functions differently today than it did in 1975, because you periodically review how you do things and you make adjustments. The Ombudsman's office is no different than anybody else's in that regard.
No doubt the public auditor does everyone a service when he goes in and does a performance evaluation or whatever it's called. I've probably got the wrong term. But when he goes in and does that value-for-money audit, it is extremely helpful to any organization because you have an outside agency come in, take an objective look, and say: "Look, in good faith, you spent X dollars hoping to get Y results, but you didn't. You got Z results, which were less than Y. Here's what you could do to tighten the program up and get better value for your money spent." That's really helpful, and it means then that you can do it.
This is a large organization we're talking about, and it's complicated, and they're dealing with tough problems. A lot of the time they're dealing with problems that you and I can't solve. That's why these folks have gone to the Ombudsman; we can't help them. So it's not an easy operation. As far as I can see, it's a service that's certainly needed. I come back to where I started: The trick of it all is that this committee has to find a balance, and it has to be able to also find a good working relationship between the Ombudsman and the committee. That's not an easy task, I acknowledge that, but that's why we got the best members of the assembly to be on this committee, right?
Mr Callahan: I'm only a sub.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Warner, for taking the time out of your busy schedule to appear before us this afternoon.
Hon Mr Warner: This was far quieter than the House. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Just before we adjourn for the day, the subcommittee members should note there is a meeting at 9:45 in this room tomorrow morning. We will adjourn until 10:00 tomorrow morning in this same room.
The committee adjourned at 1659.