CONTENTS
Tuesday 25 August 1992
Review of Office of the Ombudsman
John P. Bell
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:
*Christopherson, David (Hamilton Centre ND) for Ms Akande
*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North/-Nord L) for Mr Miclash
*Hansen, Ron (Lincoln ND) for Mr Duignan
*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND) for Mr Drainville
*McLean, Allan K. (Simcoe East/-Est PC) for Mrs Witmer
*Owens, Stephen (Scarborough Centre ND) for Ms Haeck
*Winninger, David (London South/-Sud ND) for Mr Johnson
*In attendance / présents
Clerk / Greffier: Carrozza, Franco
Staff / Personnel: Murray, Paul, committee counsel and research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1010 in room 151.
REVIEW OF OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The Chair (Mr Mark Morrow): I'd like to call this committee to order. Good morning. I'm Mark Morrow; I'm Chairman of the standing committee on the Ombudsman. We are reviewing the office of the Ombudsman this week, as a motion in the House July 23 allowed us to do.
JOHN BELL
The Chair: This morning we have appearing before us John P. Bell, former legal counsel to the committee. Good morning, sir. You have the morning to talk. I hope you will allow some time for the committee members to ask you questions and/or comments. Begin when you feel you're comfortable. Although I've stated your name in the record, could you please do so.
Mr John Bell: Yes. My name is John P. Bell. I'm a lawyer with the Toronto firm of Shibley Righton and a former legal counsel to this standing committee and its predecessor, the select committee on the Ombudsman.
First of all, Mr Chair, let me thank you and the clerk of the committee for extending the invitation to me to appear. I might say that I've been in this room lots of times, performing a function for this committee at the other side of the room. I've never been at this side of the room. It's unique. I trust members, and particularly Mr McLean, will not yell at me and demand that I answer the question.
In any event, Mr Carrozza sent me a letter setting out the certain broad parameters of the committee's review, together with the list of questions prepared by your legal counsel and this committee's 19th report setting out its business in respect of the issues relevant to your inquiry.
I don't have a formal presentation prepared but I propose to give you, with your permission, some general observations, including, if you'll forgive me, a short history lesson or history review with respect to this committee, because I believe that review sets very firmly the background of this committee, what it is, what its operations have been and what they should be. Then I'll try to fit the Ombudsman into that operation and tell you what I fervently believe, and that is that the Office of the Ombudsman in Ontario, in my view, cannot effectively function without a standing committee of the Legislature, and anybody who thinks otherwise, respectfully, doesn't understand what the Ombudsman is about in this province.
As you know, this committee was born of controversy back in 1976 when then-Premier Davis and then-Ombudsman Arthur Maloney reached an impasse respecting the North Pickering inquiry of Mr Maloney respecting claims of certain former land owners. The committee was struck during the summer vacation as a device to try to resolve the outstanding issues.
The committee, when it began its deliberations, immediately adopted the role of a body of inquiry. It was bent and determined to examine the issues that were creating the impasse between the two parties and, in an active and proactive way, be instrumental in the resolution of those issues. In fact, it was quite instrumental in the resolution of those issues, because just as the first witness in the inquiry was to be sworn, Mr Maloney and the then Minister of Housing, John Rhodes, announced an agreement towards the resolution of the matters of impasse.
The committee saw enough of the operation of the Ombudsman, then in its very early stages, to decide that it needed to stay around on a more permanent basis. It was glaringly apparent that without a vehicle of the Legislature always at the ready, the Ombudsman lacked the ability to be truly effective in bringing a recommendation forward to the House. I don't have to remind you how long matters sit on the order paper and how long, if ever, matters take to be debated in the Legislature. There had to be some more immediate and effective means for the Ombudsman, and through the Ombudsman the public, to have these recommendations that were denied by governmental organizations addressed. That's one of the reasons why the committee decided it should stick around and become more permanent, to the point of its permanency today.
The other reason -- and I say this with the utmost respect to Arthur Maloney and his staff. History will be very kind to Mr Maloney in terms of ombudsmanship in this province. He took something from nothing and created something very quickly, albeit expensively, but nevertheless his mark will be an everlasting one, in my view. That notwithstanding, the committee very quickly concluded that there had to be a continuing vehicle of the Legislature to quite frankly monitor the Ombudsman: Who watches the watchdog?
Those of you who have perused some of the committee's early reports will see the two themes: The committee will serve as a vehicle to assist the Ombudsman in recommendation-denied cases, and then, secondly, the committee will continue to, on a regular basis, usually annually, examine the organization and the operation of the Ombudsman to determine whether the Ombudsman is effectively, appropriately, fairly fulfilling his or her functions as enumerated under the act.
So from 1977 to about 1980 the committee on a quite regular basis received the annual reports of the Ombudsman, and where they describe the so-called recommendation-denied cases, this committee quite frankly turned each of those into mini-inquiries and the committee heard very completely from the Ombudsman and then his staff to fully understand the circumstances of the investigation, the conclusions reached, the recommendations made and the reasons therefore.
It then heard from the governmental organization and usually the head of that governmental organization to understand why the recommendation could not be implemented or would not be implemented, and then the committee made its decision. Mr Murray informed me this morning that since I've departed there haven't been any recommendation-denied cases considered by this committee, so the statistic probably remains the same. Statistically, this committee supported over 80% of the Ombudsman's recommendation-denied cases.
There arose an impasse, in relative terms, about 1979 between the committee and the Legislature -- not terribly serious; more borne by the very heavy schedule of the Legislature than by anything else -- when two reports of this committee to the House with recommendations specifically that Ombudsman recommendations be accepted and implemented by governmental organizations, were not debated. This committee sent -- and I can't recall which number it was, but it's the one that is bordered in black on the cover with some language in the black that says in effect, "If you, Legislature, don't address this committee's report and recommendations, you will fatally undermine the effectiveness of the Ombudsman's office and, through it, this committee."
To its real credit, the Legislature listened to that admonition and it gave the outstanding reports very full and serious debate. Something happened of historical precedent, in committee, Legislature's parlance, in the House then. The Legislature adopted recommendations of your predecessor, the select committee -- the first time it had ever happened in the history of the province, to my knowledge, and I believe that's accurate; and I'm not sure it has ever happened anywhere else in Canada or in any other common-law jurisdiction.
Immediately after those recommendations were adopted by the House, the ministers of the ministries affected by those recommendations said they would implement them without question, without further discussion and without concern. There arose an issue between the committee and the then government and particularly the then Attorney General, Roy McMurtry, as to what the effect of the House adopting this committee's recommendation was. And the two schools of thought, one by Mr McMurtry, were that the adoption was nothing more than a resolution of the House, an expression of the House's opinion or view, and there was the other school, of which I was a member, that said, "When the Legislature by order adopts a recommendation of the committee, it creates an obligation in law."
1020
We never resolved that debate, not surprisingly. When you put two or three lawyers in a room, you get five or six opinions. But as this committee has said in previous reports: "So what? It doesn't make any difference if it has the effect of law or whether it's merely a resolution. Who would be so foolish as to ignore and not implement an act of the Legislature after full debate?"
So, while the question was never resolved, there nevertheless was a significant expression throughout ministries and governmental organizations that once the Legislature adopts a recommendation of this committee -- and just to finish that thought, that is a recommendation of this committee accepting a recommendation made by the Ombudsman to a governmental organization that had been denied.
Once that process concluded, those governmental organizations affected would implement the recommendation. So there is what I consider to be the pinnacle of this committee and, frankly, the Ombudsman's effectiveness in this province. Would it have the attention of all the governmental organizations, of the Legislature and, through the Legislature, of this committee? I don't believe anybody's done an analysis. I believe it was former Mr Justice Morand, who I understand appeared before you last week, but I believe it was during his tenure -- I know I have heard this from former members of his staff, but life did get considerably easier back then in terms of dealing with governmental organizations.
When this committee realized what had happened, it took its responsibility very seriously and it stated -- again I'm sorry; I'm terrible with numbers; I can't recall which report it was but it said it in at least one report -- that because it sees itself as the vehicle of the Legislature in carrying forward these recommendations, it's going to carry out that responsibility very seriously. So, whenever the Ombudsman brings recommendation-denied cases to it, it's going to scrutinize them very thoroughly.
Therefore, Legislature, when we come to you with a recommendation of us supporting the Ombudsman's recommendation, please have comfort that we've done our job. We're not saying to you, "Don't debate it," but you don't have to presume to go into all the detail we did. We stand as your, if you will, agent in providing this immediate assistance to you.
I think, from that point until I stopped assisting the committee, that's how this committee carried on its function. Now, why is that all-important? I'm of the view that an Ombudsman is only as effective as the Ombudsman has an ability to have his or her recommendations implemented. The ultimate sanction, what the scholars call it, is the process whereby an Ombudsman can have a recommendation which a governmental organization refuses to implement implemented.
In my view, an Ombudsman who does not have that ability is not very effective at all. The Ombudsman is -- it's trite to say and I hate the phrase, but that's the phrase in the learning -- the servant of the Legislature, and that servant relationship is a two-way street. The Ombudsman has responsibilities vis-à-vis the Legislature, but conversely, the Legislature has responsibilities vis-à-vis the Ombudsman. Those responsibilities include, through this committee, a process whereby the Ombudsman can come to the committee to have recommendations brought forward. That's one part of the history.
The other part of the history is the ongoing review of the organization and operation of the Ombudsman's office. I can remember, in the early days, that the first two days of this committee's proceedings were taken at the Ombudsman's office, physically reviewing or seeing things that had gone on, talking to real people and looking at real things and generally getting into how things go on.
I note some comments of the committee in its 19th report respecting some frustration in that respect. Frankly, I identify with your frustration if there has been a resistance on anybody's part to your wish or desire or the fulfilment of your responsibility in that regard, which this Legislature has endorsed many times. I think you should persist in having your wish and your responsibilities fulfilled.
I might say something else. This committee is extraordinarily respected among academics, scholars and others who monitor, if you will, workings of standing committees. One of the reasons is because this committee has been -- and I understand, speaking to your Chair earlier, that this remains so -- extraordinarily non-partisan in its dealings. That's not to say -- by definition this is a political process, but every once in a while when certain issues arise, political views or political points of view or political backgrounds are given secondary consideration to the real issue at hand.
It seems historically that when a complainant comes forward through the Ombudsman and says, "I've been wronged this way and the governmental organization still refuses to either acknowledge that wrong or to assist me," this committee rallies together. As I say, that has been, and I would hope would always be, a very important component part. It's what gives these committee reports historically so much credibility in the House, that your colleagues don't have to be concerned as to what motivates this recommendation or that. I'm not totally naïve; there are a number of historic recommendations that have political content to them. But again, that's part of the process.
I guess the last thing, in a general sense, before I throw it open to your counsel, yourself or any members of the committee, is that I see this committee's role not as another arrow in the Ombudsman's quiver, not as a necessary evil to be resorted to on an annual basis, and I do not see this committee's role to be solely financial. I see this committee's role almost as one of a partnership with the Ombudsman when these recommendations are denied, not in a sense where there's a blind identification with the Ombudsman's position, because you will give and have given Ombudsman's reports a very thorough scrutiny, but in a partnership to bring forward whatever has to be brought forward to the Legislature. So when you report to the House on these recommendation-denied cases, yes, you're reporting with your own voice, but when you support the Ombudsman's recommendation, you're also reporting or speaking on behalf of the Ombudsman. That's what I mean by partnership.
Again, no other jurisdiction has brought the level of ombudsmanship to the effectiveness of this jurisdiction, and the last time I checked, governments were getting bigger, not smaller. It would be a shame if that effectiveness were lost.
One last thing, lest I forget. I alluded to it. I understand there haven't been any recommendation-denied cases. I would put that very high on your priority list of things, to find out why. It may be that this Ombudsman is extraordinarily effective in having her complainants' complaints resolved. It may be that the governmental organizations have looked at the history of the process and said, "We don't want to get involved with that any more because we'll have to risk an appearance before this committee." It may be a lot of things, but in my view, to fulfil your terms of reference on this specific inquiry I'd want to find out why that is. When you find it out, then you can draw your own conclusions and say whatever you have to say.
Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opening opportunity.
1030
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Bell. Comments or questions?
Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Sir, thank you very much for coming out. I do appreciate it. You've certainly opened up my eyes in terms of some of the questions I've had and you've narrowed down those questions, and I'm not going to ask them.
I am going to ask you this question: If you were the legal counsel at this point for this committee and you received a number of very consistent anonymous letters complaining about the process within the Ombudsman's office and you also received some signed letters complaining about the process within the office very consistent to those that weren't signed, those letters being from either previous employees or employees who are there at this point, what would you recommend to this committee in terms of what we should be doing, remembering that some of the accusations are pretty serious?
Mr Bell: I'll try to answer that question without the benefit of the detail of those letters, but let me make two assumptions and I'll give you two answers, which is sometimes what lawyers do, depending on what the substance of the concerns is.
I include former employees and current employees as members of the public. Where the public communicates with this committee and where the substance of those communications raises issues that go fundamentally to the Ombudsman's ability to effectively carry out his or her functions under the act, that's something I would, if I were counsel today to this committee, recommend very strongly to this committee that it inquire into.
Where the substance of the concerns does not go to that level -- they're more matters of administration within the office, former or current -- then I think out of courtesy I would in some way draw them to the attention of the Ombudsman and leave it to the Ombudsman to address those matters as she might be advised. Again, depending on how serious and how substantive those issues are, this committee may or may not get involved. This committee has been involved in the past in a direct way with communications from the public.
Mr Mammoliti: When I talked about a consistent message, this is what I'm talking about: 80% of the Ombudsman's office is unhappy and wanting to leave and looking for other employment. Would you not agree that would warrant this committee to be very interested in the morale at that office and the goings-on in that office and why perhaps there are accusations and the morale is that low? Eighty per cent of an office wanting to leave is pretty serious, in my opinion, and, if that's true, it certainly would warrant this MPP to be concerned. Would you not agree that's certainly something we --
Mr Bell: Again, with a very large preface, if that were true --
Mr Mammoliti: But we don't know if it's true. We want to find out if it's true, and I think that's where we have to recognize the input of this committee.
Mr Bell: Yes.
Mr Mammoliti: Where do we go from here? Perhaps that's another question you might want to answer. Where do we draw the line?
Mr Bell: You're close to the fine line because you're close to the line between Ombudsman administration, ie, "How I run my office is my business," and "Other than you or somebody through the legislative process approving or not approving my estimates, leave that to me" and between that side of the line and the other side of the line, which is that, "I can't carry on effectively any more" or, "I'm not able to carry on effectively any more because, for whatever reason, my staff are unable, unwilling or not doing the job." The staff are the personification of the exercise of the Ombudsman's functions. That's why the staff are there: to process the complaints from the public in respect of government maladministration. Sure, I'll give you a tough answer. That's one where I believe this committee has a responsibility to ask more questions.
Mr Mammoliti: I agree with you. I think that we should be, under these circumstances. Would you agree that a position like the Ombudsman is perhaps like the manager of a baseball team? If that baseball team is not doing well and the morale is low and there's obviously something wrong within the organization, somebody should be accountable. Do you not agree that perhaps the Ombudsman has got to look at the way the office has been managed? That's a question I'm going to ask consistently over the next few days and it's certainly a question I want to ask the Ombudsman if she comes in front of the committee.
Mr Bell: I think a closer analogy might be that an Ombudsman is either a captain of a ship or a general of an army. As Harry Truman once said and now President Bush continues to say, "The buck stops here." Where things aren't going on effectively, there's only one person who can answer that for the Legislature, and that's your servant.
Again, forgive me. I don't know details of the last two and a half years, and maybe you might fill me in on some, but if there is some disagreement as to the Ombudsman's responsibility or obligation to discuss or report or have you deal with matters, I find that somewhat extraordinary in general terms.
It's happened before. There have always been skirmishes between the Ombudsman and this committee. The more proactive and aggressive this committee has become in terms of what the Ombudsman is doing and why, the more skirmishes. That's reasonable and that's understandable, but if there is a view or a position taken in general terms that, "You can't make any inquiries into what's going on in my office," I find that not acceptable and, frankly, historically and legally incorrect.
The Chair: Mr McLean, if you promise not to yell at Mr Bell, you can now have your turn.
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will promise you that because John and I have a long association going back many years on this committee.
I'm pleased to see you here this morning because I think your input is very valuable. The amount of experience you have had with the committee has certainly been tremendous and over the years I've sat on it, many years, I've enjoyed working with you.
Has this committee ever asked you, since it has been formed, to deal with any legal problems with regard to the workings of the Ombudsman's office? Have you ever been requested by the committee to appear before it before?
Mr Bell: No, sir. Mr Carrozza's letter to me of 28 July was my first communication with this committee since I stopped working for it.
Mr McLean: It's unfortunate. I sat here with Mr Hayes for a couple of years when he was here between 1985 and 1987. The total new membership of the committee, I guess, has created part of the problem, not knowing the knowledge and the background of the operation of this committee when Mr Philip was on it for many years and had a great input into it.
I remember, as well as you do, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board bringing cases through the Ombudsman to the committee, the case of Mr A or Mr B or Mr C. It was always operated in a non-partisan way. The Ombudsman would make recommendations and come to the committee to find out if we would concur with his recommendations. I think it was an open process and a good process.
To my knowledge, I haven't heard of any cases being brought to this committee through this Ombudsman. Would I be correct in saying that the Ombudsman has never brought a case before this committee, to your knowledge?
1040
Mr Bell: As I say, other than my communication with Franco I have no detail or no information respecting what the Ombudsman has done vis-à-vis this committee. I was informed by Mr Murray this morning that there have been no recommendation-denied cases come forward, I guess since 1989, and, to be very blunt, that concerns me. I'd like you to find out the answer. I'd like to find out the answer.
Mr McLean: I'd like to find out the answer too.
Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I guess some of the points you've touched on this morning strike at the heart of the concerns that I have with respect to tracking exactly what is going on in the office. I think, as MPPs fully accountable to the taxpayers, our constituents, we certainly have to have some method of monitoring, and it's not just because of the dollar issues that are involved. I believe the budget is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $9 million for the office. But the bigger issue is with respect to justice and to ensure that people are receiving justice in an expeditious manner.
Donald Morand appeared before the committee last week and he took the view, as has been stated before, that this is a court of last resort for people who have already been turned down. But in the establishment of this final appeal process, there's still no reason for a laissez-faire attitude.
I guess my question is, in your view, how do we get down to tracking the kinds of case handling and case management systems that are in place within the office without interfering in that independence I believe and I think all members believe and agree is important so the current and future ombudsmen are able to do their jobs effectively?
Mr Bell: One of the ways you can do it is what the committee used to do. We used to sit in the large boardroom of the Ombudsman's office for a couple of days and we used to talk with the senior staff of the Ombudsman and they used to tell us and in some ways re-create how they did their business. We learned all about the case conferences, we learned all about the -- I forget the detail at the time, but we got an insight as to how they did things.
One of the features of this committee reviewing recommendation-denied cases is that again, if you look at previous reports, you'll see that this committee, and I think it's a regulation, listed the documents it wanted -- required -- from the Ombudsman through the various stages of the investigative complaint process. So you got things like initial memorandum or written complaint, case conference memorandum, 19(3) letter, 22(3) letter, 22(4) letter, and that's a microcosm of the office, because a recommendation-denied case involves every aspect of the Ombudsman's operation, from the initial complaint receipt to the final report recommending. You had a pretty good handle on how things were done and from time to time you'd offer constructive suggestions on how things might be done more effectively.
I can remember, through Don Morand's and Dan Hill's day, that subsection 22(3) reports, the so-called recommendation-denied reports, were darn well written, concise. I know they took a lot of time, and one of the reasons they took a lot of time was because the potential existed for every such report to come to this committee to be scrutinized, and anybody who works or delivers a product of work that is going to be scrutinized in some public way usually spends a good bit of time on the quality of that. You shouldn't take all the credit for the quality of the reports, but that's one of the reasons.
Sorry, I'm preaching the same thing, but if that's gone, you lack -- I would request that you have the office put together a brief of documents, and if there's a concern about confidentiality, then block out all the matters that might be considered confidential, but give us a brief of your documents. Let's see how you do business in a paper way. Let's get an insight as to your process.
I note there's the perennial theme of, "It takes too long to process complaints." By the way, this particular tenure is not unique in that regard. That was a concern from the very beginning and I don't know what the numbers are.
I note now that you don't get comparative statistical analysis. Well, how can you do your job to assess whether the operation is more effective this year as compared to last?
I see you don't get the schedule of outstanding recommendation-denied cases, because the view has been expressed by the office, presumably by the Ombudsman, that once a 22(3) report is issued and presumably the Ombudsman exercised her discretion under section 22(4), that's it; there's no more responsibility for follow-up through this committee. Well, other ombudsmen and this committee -- most, I believe -- hold the view that so long as there is an outstanding 22(3) recommendation, the Ombudsman continues to have involvement, and if this committee has been part of it then that involvement continues.
Those are some of the things, and if there is a concern within the office that somehow some interpretation of the act requires the current Ombudsman to be more concerned about confidentiality matters in the past, then I'd have a good, thorough, heart-to-heart discussion and understand what the problems are. If there are problems, those problems can be overcome, in my view.
Arthur Maloney felt quite restrained by the act because he interpreted that act in about as wide a scope as one can, and you know what the court says. The Supreme Court of Canada says this is social policy legislation, and social policy legislation is to be given a very wide latitude of interpretation. It's a very wide net, and as I say, I don't see the confidentiality concerns in helping this committee to help the Ombudsman. After all, that's all you're about: to try to make the office more effective than it has been and is currently.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): As a former employee, do you have any problems with us having this review we're doing right now? Do you think this is a good idea?
Mr Bell: No, this review, as you've said in your report, I believe, is long overdue.
Mr Murdoch: Okay, I just wanted to get that on the record, because obviously the Ombudsman doesn't feel that way with the report she's put out, a special report sort of towards us on having this review. You've probably seen the report, I'm sure. That's just the one thing I wanted to check.
The other one is that I appreciate the fact that you tell us about how we can work with the Ombudsman if there's a problem that comes to her, and if she has problems with the Legislature adopting her report she comes to this committee and it helps out.
On the other hand, on a denied report -- and you sort of touched on it just before I got the chance to ask you -- we sometimes will get people who write to us and say, "Why is it taking two years to find out about my problem?" or there have been some concerns. We as a committee then felt that if we should look into that and write a simple letter to the Ombudsman saying, "Here's a case; why is it taking two years?" then we basically can get back that it's not our business. I think from your previous answer you're saying that maybe we could work together on that.
Mr Bell: Yes, you can work together. How can we help you to be more effective? But it is certainly within the authority of this committee to conclude that after a certain period of time, the length of time in processing complaints, the office is not effectively fulfilling its function and therefore become involved in that.
This committee has numerous previous reports where it has said -- and I think I have the number right. At one time I think the average time to process a complaint, to whatever conclusion it was, exceeded 365 days. This committee said quite bluntly: "That's too long. Shorten it." I think you will find that there was real effort and some success in shortening. But if you're not even finding out how long it's taking and then you're told it's none of your business to ask -- well, I believe it is, and I believe you should exercise all of your authority. As a very minimum you would report back to the Legislature and say: "We seem to be having difficulty getting the following cooperation. Please help us." I would think that your colleagues in the House would help you.
1050
Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Mr Bell, thanks very much for coming before us today. I found your brief very refreshing and very informative. You seem to have a very firm grasp, it seems to me, as to the balance that needs to be struck between the sense of the independence of decision-making of the office and the accountability that the office has as a servant to the Legislature -- to us, the standing committee, and the Legislature which we represent.
I would ask you: What recommendations would you have as to changes in the legislation to maybe clarify the accountability that the office has to the Legislature? As you've heard from the series of questions that have been asked of you today, we are having some difficulty not only in trying to strike that balance ourselves but in getting that cooperation from the office today. What recommendations would you have, as we are looking at the act, that might spell this out more explicitly?
Mr Bell: One of the questions in the list of questions that your counsel prepared under this committee's operations is, has this committee fulfilled its responsibilities sufficiently in the area of enacting recommendations, or enacting regulations, for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of her function.
As you know, again, this committee is the only committee of any that I've ever heard of that has the ability to recommend regulations to the Legislature for the assistance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of her functions, and if those recommendations drafted as regulations are adopted, they automatically become regulations. This, by the way, is the strongest example I can give for the conclusion I have that once the House adopts your recommendation, it becomes law. That's extraordinary. No other vehicle of the Legislature has it.
I answered the question, when I was reviewing the material, that yes, that's one of the areas where this committee probably has not done what it should have. But there's a very good reason, because going back even as early as 1978, this committee and Arthur Maloney thought there was going to be a bill amending the Ombudsman Act and that all of these problems like confidentiality, secrecy and all of the other things would be addressed in legislation, so "We'll defer our regulation power in favour of a bill." Well, that's 14 years ago, and there are probably no current plans to table again Bill 80 or any successor.
I would suggest that this committee might look very hard at dusting off that regulation power, take an inventory of areas of concern, and say to the Legislature as well as to the Ombudsman: "Okay, these are the things we think need to be done on an immediate basis to make the office more effective and to assist you. Here they are. If, as and when there's a bill amending the act, then we'll see about a sunset clause."
In specific terms, if it needs to be done -- and it sounds like it does -- I think this committee could and should draft something in those regulations clarifying what the Ombudsman's responsibilities are in reporting to the Legislature and what matters the report should contain. It would seem to me that certainly comes within the heading of matters that will assist the Ombudsman in the exercise of her functions. This is one area where the collaborative approach needs to be undertaken.
I think you need to hear from this Ombudsman as to what are the very difficult items or matters of omission in the current legislation that require correction, the secrecy issue being one. That's probably one you can't do anything with by regulation. You'd probably have to have a substantive amendment to the act, if it's needed.
I don't know what the current Ombudsman's position is, but I know predecessors have expressed frustration that they can't disclose enough. When they get a complaint in, they'd like to have some ability in appropriate circumstances to make public the fact of the complaint and the investigation, much like the Ontario Human Rights Commission does. I think if there was a sufficient description of public interest in the legislation, I would be more than comfortable in giving the Ombudsman that discretion. The other matters, I think, could come from a good, thorough discussion with the Ombudsman.
I don't have a lot of problems with the current legislation. When you break it down, it's a pretty effective tool. There are very few -- even new institutions like the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which comes to mind. He's got the power of inquiry under the act and he has one more piece of equipment than the Ombudsman. The privacy commissioner can issue an order which will require some compliance, but the Ombudsman has the same inquiry power. He can hold a hearing under oath, examine witnesses under oath and require the production of documents. It's a very effective tool.
Mr Ramsay: Pursuant to your recommendation that we should be dusting off our regulatory power, especially in regard to reporting to us by the Ombudsman, do you have any specific recommendations as to what her role should be once the office has submitted its annual report to the Legislature and has been referred to the standing committee?
Mr Bell: Yes, to assist and confer with this committee while this committee fulfils its obligations in examining the report. I'll be more specific. When you do get a recommendation-denied case, the Ombudsman, in my view, should be continuously present before this committee to assist this committee in any way appropriate in terms of the committee's deliberations. I view the Ombudsman's role, when a recommendation-denied case comes to you, to be the advocate for that recommendation, not a member of staff.
There has been some dialogue between this committee and former ombudsmen that when these recommendation-denied cases were deliberated by the committee, it was a member of the Ombudsman's staff, usually a member of the investigative staff, who was the direct spokesperson on behalf of the Ombudsman.
Now, that person certainly has a role to perform in this committee's deliberations. But in my view, the person who made the recommendation, presumably the person who actually exercised the discretion to formulate that recommendation, should be there, if you will, selling that recommendation to you. My view is that this committee deals with recommendation-denied cases differently when the Ombudsman is there on a continuous basis than when members of staff are there.
In perhaps that precise language, that's what I'd be saying, and I'd go further. When this committee makes recommendations to the House that are adopted, until those recommendations are implemented the Ombudsman has a continuing role to see or to monitor. If they're not implemented, then the Ombudsman should come back to this committee and say so and why not. There have been examples where those have happened and this committee has called in the head of the governmental organization with the Ombudsman and said, "Hey, what's wrong?" And, you know, funny things happen. Even before the attendance the wheels are in motion to implement. That's pretty important, I think.
1100
Mr David Winninger (London South): Is there anything inherent in the Office of the Ombudsman that would render it subject to less public scrutiny than would be the case with the privacy commissioner you mentioned or the Conflict of Interest Commissioner or the Provincial Auditor, just to name a few examples? Would their appearance before the committee, subject to a review, be a compromise of their independence in the same way the Ombudsman claims her attendance would be?
Mr Bell: No. Let me put a caution on that. If that is her position, I think I can understand it, and there is a legitimate concern. If that is it in this hypothetical, there is a legitimate concern that if this committee becomes too involved in the operation of the office, then it turns into the former West German committee, which was a 19-member committee that in fact was the Ombudsman. So the old saying is, "If you're going to do it, then I might as well step aside and let you carry out the role." As I say, that's a legitimate concern.
But you're not here, and you're not motivated by a desire, to perform Ombudsman functions. You're motivated by a desire to assist the Ombudsman to become as effective as possible. So the short answer is no. Historically when ombudsmen have come to this committee saying, "You know, I just can't get this done. This is what's happening" -- there used to be lots of those involving the Workers' Compensation Board: "They won't answer my letters, they won't do this, they won't do that." We'd have nice chats and, lo and behold, all of a sudden things got easier.
I don't see that compromising anything. I just see that as a further development of a collaborative relationship which I've defined somewhat as a partnership when things go to the House.
The Chair: Mr Bell, just before we go to the next questioner, you were involved in Farm Q, and I should inform you that that has been resolved by this committee.
Mr Bell: My goodness. I saw that it was referenced in your report. That's the pig case, isn't it?
Mr McLean: Yes, that was an interesting case. I was glad to see it resolved.
Mr Bell, have you had any meetings at all with the present Ombudsman?
Mr Bell: Shortly after she was appointed I was invited to speak to a group of her senior staff. I think they were the investigative people, together with the legal staff and herself. I think the subject matter was the standing committee: What was its role and how did I see the Ombudsman and the office relating to the committee? I spent about an hour and a half or two hours with them, but no, I've not had. After I stopped serving with this committee I wouldn't have seen any reason for her to communicate with me.
Mr McLean: So you had one communication. That would be shortly after she was appointed.
Mr Bell: Yes.
Mr McLean: Would that be with the existing staff who had been there at the time?
Mr Bell: I can't say if it's existing staff. It was the then existing staff. I do know that certain senior people who were there then are not there now. Linda Bohnen, for example, Michael Zacks and Gail Morrison were at that session and they're no longer with the office. They've gone on to other things. Linda Bohnen, by the way, is a lawyer with my firm now and doing very well.
Mr McLean: The meeting you had then was approximately an hour and a half, and you at that time gave them the insight of the workings of this committee, much the same as you have done here this morning.
Mr Bell: Not as pointed as today, no. It was more of an overview, sort of a historic reference: Where did the committee come from, what is it about, how can the committee work effectively with the Ombudsman? -- in that tone.
Mr McLean: At that time would it appear to you that the Ombudsman was not fully aware of the operations of the committee?
Mr Bell: I couldn't conclude that. I would have thought the opposite, that the Ombudsman's invitation to me to come and speak about it was, I guess, one, born of a need to know and, two, after that, if I had done my job effectively, presumably I would have imparted some information to her, yes.
Mr McLean: Did you give her some information about the types of hearings that we held in the committee?
Mr Bell: I believe so, yes.
Mr McLean: I guess what concerns me is the fact that I've seen a lot in this committee in the last few weeks; I've seen a fair bit in the papers. From what I observe, there's a communication problem between the committee and the Ombudsman. I probably could fault the committee for not having you here a lot earlier, like 18 months ago, to perhaps fill it in on the workings in past years, how it's been done. I would make the observation that I think the committee should be looking at you as a guide to help solve this problem of the communication gap between it and the Ombudsman, if that's at all possible. It's an observation I wanted to make because of the background you have. The way I've seen this committee operating, there certainly is a need for communication, and I believe you'd be the logical one to do it.
Mr Bell: Thank you.
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Bell, I'm not a lawyer, but I sometimes wish I were.
Mr Bell: I tell my kids, don't.
Mr Curling: The fact is they do speak a different language and I'm lost at times. Therefore, just as a politician, I'm trying to understand the law so that I can be an Ombudsman to the people who come into my constituency to express to them the services that are available.
I often wonder in this process whether the Legislature is the supreme power of the system, that the Legislature has a greater power than the Ombudsman, so to speak.
Mr Bell: Undoubtedly. By the Legislative Assembly Act, whenever the courts have come to comment on it, the Legislature has supreme authority vis-à-vis enacting legislation through the executive branch and then the legislative branch, but also, exercising certain functions under the Legislative Assembly Act, the Legislature is the highest court in the province. There's no contest between the superiority-subordination of the Legislature and the Ombudsman. It says right in the Ombudsman Act that the Ombudsman is -- I believe the language is "a servant of the assembly." If that's not the language, that's the effect. It is also a mandatory requirement that the Ombudsman report minimally on an annual basis to the Legislature in respect of the activities of her office in that year; plain and simple.
Mr Curling: I think this committee went about defining that in many ways. One way was to have the Ombudsman in here to ask about whom she reports to, because all this started with the fact that we had an annual report and we wanted to know what to do with it. It is said that this committee must review the annual report, and we said, "What are we going to do with it afterwards?" We tried, through the Ombudsman, to know what we could do with it. I presume she more or less said we could read it and then submit it to the Speaker.
We brought the Speaker in here and I asked him the same question. I'm not quite sure whether I got an answer from him about what it is we do, but as you have said that too and established that, I thought I understood that the Legislature is the supreme power here.
Would statements like, "We cannot be subjected to opening ourselves up to the political inference of the Legislature," which was stated by the Ombudsman, reflect to you a lack of understanding of the process by the Ombudsman?
Mr Bell: If this or any other Ombudsman objects to appearing and participating with this committee because of fear of infection of the political points of view and the political process, that would demonstrate a lack of appreciation as to what this committee is all about. I mentioned the non-partisan way in which this committee has dealt, and I would believe there to be a lack of appreciation.
More fundamentally, there seems to be a lack of confidence on the part of you members that you'll fulfil that responsibility in a non-partisan way. I've got a simple answer for that. Why doesn't somebody give you a chance?
1110
Mr Curling: I'm not all that excited about the fact that we are all together on this issue. I'm being realistic. If the opposition were taking this strategy, and those people over there who are the government had taken a different decision, you and I know it wouldn't go.
Mr Bell: Exactly.
Mr Curling: They'd just gang up on us with their six and get the four here, and they would have won. But they're embracing all of this, so I don't have a partisan shot --
Interjections.
The Chair: Order.
Mr Curling: I'm not excited; I think it's on the issue that we go. Do you see what I mean? As soon as I say I'm not quite excited about the comradeship here, that goes on. It's the issue I'm more interested in. I'm more interested in the people who present a case, not that the government is on side or that we are on side.
You have established the fact that the Legislature is supreme. Again, I'm very mindful that the NDP has the majority in the House, and whenever it comes to a vote, it will go that way. But to raise the issue and make sure it's known and that we're on the right track is why your coming forward now and answering these questions is extremely helpful.
The question I want to ask, although I went around it another way, is that the Ombudsman is appointed for 10 years. That's a long time to appoint anyone. As she said in her statement: "I submit my office to the auditors and to public accounts and I submit my annual report to the committee here. If they want to fire me, they can." Now, it's my view that 10 years is a long time. Do you feel it's quite a long time to appoint someone, that if things are not going well, we could change it? Should we be looking at maybe a five-year appointment?
Mr Bell: I guess it's like everything else. One year is a long time if things aren't working out. If things are working out marvellously, 10 years might not be long enough. I don't get terribly excited about what the length of time is; I'm more concerned with how things are working out. If they're not working out -- hopefully you're not anywhere close to that.
Mr Chair, if you'll permit me, this is a political process by definition, Mr Curling. I am excited by what goes on here, because as I said, over 80% of the things this committee has dealt with, it has dealt with in a non-partisan way. The other 20% are the exchanges that happen from time to time. The decisions that are made by the majority of the committee, for whatever reason, I find sometimes refreshing and frankly giving more credibility to the process. Anyway, forgive that aside.
Mr Chair, might it be an appropriate time -- you've asked me some specific questions through your clerk. If I haven't covered them, would it assist if I embellished on some of these questions, just to make sure the record was complete?
The Chair: I would say that would be fine, but it is up to the whim of the committee. Is that agreeable by all three parties?
Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Mr Chair, I have a very brief question I'd like to put to the former counsel.
Mr Mammoliti: Perhaps it would be wise, Mr Chairman, to finish off any questions the committee would have and then --
Mr Murdoch: That's fine.
The Chair: Mr Curling, are you done?
Mr Ramsay: I hope so.
Mr Murdoch: Yes, he's done.
Mr Curling: My colleagues on both sides seem to be saying they hope so. I'm just being selfish in my quest of a better understanding, and you have covered it. I'm sure, as you embellish those questions that are for you, you'll satisfy me even more.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Curling, for that thoughtful question.
Mr Mammoliti: Unlike Mr Curling, I'm actually proud of what this committee has done over the last two years. I think the fact that we are unbiased speaks for itself and I think the relationship we've experienced with this committee is one to be proud of. I'm proud of what we're doing. I'm not about to take any shots at Alvin. I've always said he sings like a bird, and I like hearing him.
Just one quick question, if you don't mind answering: One thing that really puzzles me and frustrates me to a degree is the perception the public has of the Ombudsman's office. The Ombudsman's office is supposed to be the last resort for the public in terms of any complaints they have with ministries, yet the perception of a lot of people out there is that the Ombudsman's office is an office that protects the government. Would you agree that this is one of the perceptions out there? Whether you do or you don't agree with that, I'd like you to tell us as a committee what we could do to stop that perception, because I know that's not true. I know the Ombudsman's office is certainly independent, that when it's time to criticize, it certainly does, and when it's time to rule, it certainly does. What can we do as a committee to stop that perception, if that exists?
Mr Bell: First of all, I'm unable to confirm that it is a perception, just because I lack the information. It's certainly not the perception of those I associate with or with whom I have discussions about the Ombudsman, but that's probably because those people have substantial insights as to how the operation is carried on.
If that is a perception within the public -- and it wouldn't surprise me if it is, because the public very often doesn't differentiate. If it's funded by public money, if it's funded by the Legislature, it's an arm of the government and people will not bother to make that distinction. If it is, then this committee should look very carefully and seriously at how to assist the Ombudsman in getting the message out that it's an independent function.
Speaking from the workings of this committee, to the extent that this committee's operations become known to the public, one of the ways is to encourage the Ombudsman to give you some recommendation-denied cases. I don't mean that you tell the Ombudsman, "I want you to decide things in a different way," but if there's a reticence or a reluctance to come forward, I think you need to find out about that and do whatever is necessary to eliminate that reluctance etc and to encourage the process to continue as it did.
Mr Perruzza: I have a couple of questions, and I'll try to keep them very brief.
The other day I read the act and I too ran into the 10-year appointment clause, and I found that to be rather unusual. In my experience -- and I've sat on two other publicly elected bodies, on a school board and on a municipal council -- appointments generally range anywhere from two to five years. Rarely do you see them exceeding that range of years. They quite often mirror the life of governments or of elections themselves.
Also, speaking hypothetically now, I'd like to get your opinion on two elements of the act. There's a clause in the act that allows the Legislature to remove an Ombudsman from office with cause. What does "cause" mean to you? What would constitute cause?
Mr Bell: I think "cause" would have a broad definition. If you want to stay within the language of the legislation, one of the causes, it would seem to me, would be evidence that the Ombudsman is, for whatever reason, not carrying out the functions required of the Ombudsman under the act. Go to an extreme: If the Ombudsman just were no longer exercising discretion to investigate, to do a 19(3) or to do a 22(3) where there were circumstances that any reasonable assessment would conclude that discretion ought to be exercised, that perhaps is one. If an Ombudsman became, for whatever reason, physically or otherwise unable to do the job of Ombudsman, that is a cause.
1120
But "for cause" is a legal term of art. There are many legal reasons for dismissing somebody for cause, and I would expect that if there were ever consideration of that list, you'd revert -- or whoever -- to the usual common law definitions. I don't believe there's any special definition in the act.
By the way, that's to be compared with some legislation in some jurisdictions wherein I believe the Ombudsman is appointed at the pleasure of the Legislature. The reciprocal of that, of course, is that when it's no longer the pleasure of the Legislature that can be terminated.
To say one thing for length of tenure, though, length of tenure is generally considered by ombudsmen to be equivalent to independence. You can't tie the position of Ombudsman to an election or to the length of a particular government, because that ties it to government and that would seriously erode the independence.
So I believe you should have a fairly lengthy tenure, but you should have some built-in means -- as probably already exist -- if circumstances are appropriate, to examine that tenure. But as I said before, if things are working out well, who cares?
Mr Perruzza: I understand what you're saying. Maybe to expand the point a little, am I to understand that "cause" could mean that if you're requested by the committee to appear before it and you consistently refuse to appear before it, and in your opinion that essentially is part and parcel of any Ombudsman's list of duties, would that in itself be cause?
Mr Bell: No. You'd have to examine all the circumstances: What was the reason for the request? What was the reason for the refusal etc?
I think this committee would also want to examine, perhaps with the Office of the Speaker or Mr Murray's office -- this committee, by its terms of reference, has some pretty significant powers to call for persons, places and things to come before it. Plus -- it's not often used and we all would hope and pray that it would never be used in the context of an Ombudsman -- this committee can always call for the issuance of a Speaker's warrant. Then, if people refuse a Speaker's warrant, there are certain consequences of that which flow through the Legislative Assembly Act to the Legislature.
If you got to the point where you could only get the Ombudsman to appear before you by the issuance of a Speaker's warrant, then the relationship would have been so fundamentally destroyed that I think you'd be looking at different things to do. This may be totally inappropriate. I hope you're not or would not ever be in that context, but it's available.
The committee came close once. Mr Maloney walked out of this committee once when the committee commenced an examination and inquiry into a matter that a member of his staff had brought to the committee's attention. Mr Maloney adopted the view that it was a matter of administration and, "It's my business and not your committee." The late Jim Renwick was Chair of the committee at that time. Mr Maloney made his position known. The committee listened intently and then decided to proceed to examine into the matter. Mr Maloney and his staff got up and left. I believe it's the second or third report: This committee had some very eloquent things to say about that and the language was quite blunt. You might want to have reference to that as a guide.
Mr Curling is right. I do get excited when I talk about this committee because it really has done some wonderful things. There's not a lot of reinvention of the wheel that's necessary; you just go back and take a lesson from history. As I say -- and it was adopted by the Legislature, by the way -- the committee said very specific things. The bottom line was, "Don't do it again or you'll put this committee in a position where it may have to consider more drastic legislation." It didn't happen again.
Mr Perruzza: There's a last thing I'd like to clear up. Again I'm asking your opinion, because I read the act and I'd like a few points cleared up for me. If this committee were to recommend, for example, changing the length of appointment of the Ombudsman from 10 years to five or to three, and did that in midterm of an appointment, what are the repercussions of that kind of move?
Mr Bell: I don't know if that's a question you want to ask in public. You might want to take some legal advice in another way. There's a saying that the Legislature can do whatever the Legislature feels compelled to do. I would have some concerns that any subsequent legislation affected the 10-year relationship. I don't think I should say anything more than that. In fact, I'm not going to say anything more than that unless you compel me.
Mr Mammoliti: Or pay you.
Mr Bell: Well.
Mr Perruzza: I want to respond very quickly to a point that was made by my honourable Liberal friend Mr Curling. I've sat in the House now for almost two years, and quite frankly, of all the bills that have gone through the House, the Liberal Party has voted against very few. More often than not, they've supported the programs and legislation that we put through the House, so we often see eye to eye. When push comes to shove and you have to put the hammer down, that happens, but I think that more often than not we get carried away and try to make a show of the proceedings of the Legislature. I'm one who doesn't believe in making a show, and sometimes we get carried away with that. But we agree very often, and this is another one of those issues where we see eye to eye. So we're not that far apart, Mr Curling.
Mr Curling: Oh, I am glad to hear that.
The Acting Chair (Mr David Ramsay): Thank you very much, Mr Perruzza. Committee, as you heard earlier, Mr Bell has graciously offered to run through the questions that we had submitted to him through our legal counsel that we would like some advice on. Mr Bell, I'll give the floor to you to do that, and thank you very much for this.
Mr Bell: One of the questions Mr Carrozza asked me to give some thought to is, what is required to ensure that the Ombudsman is both independent and publicly accountable? We've touched upon a lot of that already. Let me deal with the last part of it. The public accountability is the reporting function required of the Ombudsman to the Legislature and, through the Legislature, to this committee. In my view, any Ombudsman should be ready, willing and able at any time to engage with this committee in a consideration of any aspect of his or her office with respect to the accountability issue. After all, if nobody's watching the watchdog, there is, at least in perception terms, a concern.
As for the independence, the act is already very specific: Notwithstanding that the Ombudsman is a servant of the Legislature and accountable and reportable to the Legislature, it is an independent. What does that mean? It means the political process not in a direct way engage or interfere with the operation of the Ombudsman's office and the exercise of those functions. I would give a very serious listen to every time the Ombudsman expressed a concern that her or his independence was being threatened and do what you can to assist, but that doesn't prevent a genuine difference of view occurring from time to time between this committee or the Legislature and the Ombudsman.
1130
I hold the view that the Ombudsman is generally held out by those who are familiar with the operation to be quite independent. I think it's perceived by that part of the public to be even more independent than the Human Rights Commission, for example, or, because it is new, even the Information and Privacy Commissioner etc. Other than that, I'm not specifically aware that you need to do anything more than you've already done before, and that is to give full and effective support to what the Ombudsman does when matters are brought before you.
The next question that was asked was, should this standing committee play a role in the appointment of the Ombudsman? Absolutely. I believe that an Ombudsman should be appointed by the Legislature, as is the case now in the act, but I believe it should be with the advice of this committee or after giving full consideration to a recommendation of this committee. I don't like to adopt a lot of things that happen south of the border in their committee system, either in the House or the Senate. But as to the appointment hearings that occur from time to time with the judiciary and with other senior executive branch members, I don't see anything wrong with that from time to time. Again, I think the watchdog, before an appointment, should welcome some kind of dialogue with an arm of the Legislature.
The next question -- again, this one's been hanging around since 1975 -- is, what is the proper scope of the Ombudsman's oath of secrecy? Without giving that full definition, let me say I agree probably with this Ombudsman and with her predecessors who complained that the oath of secrecy is too confined. I believe the only qualification to that oath of secrecy is in a report; in other words, the Ombudsman can disclose that which she considers to be necessary for the purpose of preparing and submitting the report. By the way, that is one of the vehicles through which this committee gets access to documentation, beyond your powers to require things to be provided to you.
I would be in favour of an amendment that permitted the Ombudsman, in appropriate, defined circumstances perhaps, to go beyond that. I don't see anything wrong, if it's exercised properly, with an Ombudsman saying or issuing a press release, for example, that a complaint had been received regarding X and that she was going to investigate X. I would be concerned if there were disclosures during the course of the investigation leading up to a 22(3) report. I think that's when the system probably has to shut down.
After the 22(3) report, after there is a response received from the governmental organization, that's the time when the Ombudsman decides whether to include it in a report to the Legislature or not. If that decision is in the affirmative, ie, it's going to the Legislature, I don't have a problem with a concurrent discretion to make that fact public, rather than wait for the actual printing and tabling of the report. The background is continuing and increasing openness in government, and I don't have a problem with that.
The last question I've probably answered, and that is, what should the role of the Ombudsman be once a report has been submitted to the Legislature and referred to the standing committee? I believe the Ombudsman has a continuing active and positive role to play until the time the recommendation is either implemented by the governmental organization or this committee or the Legislature decides not to support it. That's the end of the road. The other end is when it's done.
In respect of the other responsibilities -- I've touched upon them -- the other aspects of an Ombudsman report, ie, organization and operation of the office, again the Ombudsman should play a continuing and active role of assisting the committee in examining into that which the committee considers and the Legislature considers it has the responsibility to do.
Beyond that, I have some other things to say with respect to some of the questions your counsel has prepared, but for the convenience of the committee, unless members have some other specific matters they want to ask of me, it may be more effective if Mr Murray and I worked out a dialogue. I could provide him with some input at a later time, before the committee has to write its report.
The Acting Chair: That's a generous offer. Would the committee concur with that offer? Thank you, Mr Bell. I want to thank you very much on behalf of the committee for your very insightful and thoughtful presentation. I believe, speaking for the committee, we all gained from your presentation today. I want to thank you and wish you well.
Mr Bell: Thank you very much. The committee should feel free, at any time, if it wants to use me as a resource or otherwise as a source of information, I'd be pleased to assist the committee. Good luck in what you have before you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.
I'd like to inform the committee that because of the cancellation of our presenter this afternoon, we will be adjourned to 10 am tomorrow morning. The committee's adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1137.