Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

CONTENTS

Wednesday 7 October 1992

Ombudsman of Ontario

Roberta Jamieson

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:

*Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND) for Mr Duignan

*Cooper, Mike (Kitchener-Wilmot ND) for Ms Haeck

*Harrington, Margaret H. (Niagara Falls ND) for Mr Drainville

*Mammoliti, George (Yorkview ND) for Mr Johnson

*Sterling, Norman W. (Carleton 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 1004 in room 151.

OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

The Chair (Mr Mark Morrow): Can we come to order, please. Good morning. I'm Mark Morrow, Chairman of the standing committee on the Ombudsman. This morning appearing before us is Roberta Jamieson who is the Ombudsman of Ontario. Welcome. I understand you have a presentation you would like to make to us. I was hoping, with your indulgence, that you might be able to tell us how long it's going to be so we can divide the questions up among the three caucuses for appropriate timing. Begin when you're ready.

Ms Roberta Jamieson: Mr Chair, it is my intention to make a brief opening statement and then to entertain questions and concerns. We are badly in need of dialogue and communication, not speeches, so it won't be a lengthy speech.

I believe the controversies which have arisen over the last year or so are best put behind us. The Legislature and the people of Ontario expect us to have a productive and cooperative relationship, but before we do that two things need to be clarified.

First, I want to make sure members understand why I am here today so eagerly and willingly to meet with the committee under its regular standing orders. Over the summer, of course, I was unwilling to be summonsed before this committee when it was involved in quite a different activity, but it is a total myth that I did not wish to meet with this committee. The reality is that I have sought this meeting for over a year and if we can do this morning what I hope we can do, it will be the meeting I have been hoping to have for the last three years.

After trying and trying to get a meeting, you can imagine how I felt last May when I picked up a newspaper to find that the committee was conducting an investigation into the activities of the Ombudsman. I again tried to get a meeting, quite unsuccessfully; in fact, my requests were totally ignored.

The next thing I heard was that the committee was conducting a review under the terms of reference it had recommended it be granted by the Legislature in its 19th report. Then I was unable to find any place where the Legislature had even considered that report. Instead of communication, I learned through the media that I was uncooperative, that I did not wish to be held accountable, even that I was a Frankenstein. Now really.

There was vague talk about the "goings on" in my operations, but I vigorously continued to seek a meeting under the committee's regular standing orders right up until the morning of August 27. During the course of that week, while I remained hopeful, I received no communication from the committee. The Legislature's television channel continued to say that the Ombudsman was appearing as just another witness in the committee's review of the Office of the Ombudsman.

I sincerely believed then and believe now that for me to submit to the demands which the committee was making at that time would have irreparably damaged the independence and integrity of the Office of the Ombudsman. The Legislature created an independent Ombudsman at arm's length from political interference of any kind. The public expects me, each and every day, to safeguard that independence so that their Ombudsman can investigate their complaints about government action from an objective point of view and make findings which, if necessary, are critical of government without fear of political pressure.

To allow my office to become the subject of your review would have reduced the Ombudsman to an employee of this committee. I made it very clear to you over the course of the summer that this would have seriously undermined the independence of the Ombudsman. Having made that clear, I'm content to let that particular issue rest there unless the committee wishes to raise it again.

The second issue I want to raise has to do with my staff. I am proud to tell you I have a hardworking staff made up of excellent, motivated, competent individuals who are representative of all facets of Ontario's population. Neither they nor I appreciated the committee being used to propagate unfounded rumours and misrepresentations about them, particularly when they had no way of defending themselves. They have been disgusted by unwarranted attacks on their professionalism and their hard work in serving the public.

1010

I speak for my office and I feel called upon to defend my staff, particularly against unfair, untrue, anonymous and unattributed public statements, and I do so now.

A myth was circulated in the committee and publicly that I have experienced unprecedented turnover of staff and that 80% of my staff were seeking to bail out. The reality is quite different. If we have a close look at the facts, we will find that I have had a sum total, over the three years that I have been Ombudsman, of 30 terminations and resignations. In the three years before I became Ombudsman, the office had 40 terminations and resignations. That's not including early retirement, contract employees etc. But I say again, during the three years that I have been Ombudsman, there have been 30. In the three years before me, there were 40. My turnover rate then is approximately 10 persons per year in a staff of 129.

It was stated that the number of my staff has grown like wildfire, that I am empire-building. That's the myth. The reality is that when I became Ombudsman the staff complement was 129, and the complement today is just that, 129. There has been no change.

My staff is dismayed that the myth has been circulated by committee members that I have a massive backlog of cases. There is no backlog and my staff works very hard each and every day to keep it that way.

The myth was widely circulated that there is a delay in resolving cases. The reality is that despite the procedures the Ombudsman Act requires I follow to ensure fairness, the average length of time it takes to resolve a jurisdictional case is 102 days, just over three months. My staff can take a good deal of the credit for achieving that high standard.

I and my staff are working hard to be a model organization that offers leadership to all the governmental organizations I investigate. We have to make hard choices to ensure that we do a first-rate job, that we serve the members of the public of Ontario and members of the Legislature.

Without a doubt, I have asked my staff to work harder, to handle more complaints and to do all that with fewer resources. Sometimes that means discomfort, sometimes adjustment and sometimes frustration.

Just as in any large organization, I have no doubt that there are a few individual staff members who are not happy, and for them there is easy access to a variety of avenues within the organization to be heard. There is also a grievance procedure with three levels of internal appeal and, ultimately, appeal to outside arbitration if they so choose. The committee has a copy of this procedure. I tabled it over a year ago.

The biggest myth of all which has been circulated is that I do not wish to be accountable to anyone. The reality is that I am already accountable, as has been every Ombudsman. How? I defend my estimates. Fiscally, I'm accountable when I defend my estimates before the Board of Internal Economy, which is chaired by the Speaker of the Legislature and on which each party's House leader sits.

Second, my accounts are audited each and every year by the Provincial Auditor.

Third, I make an annual report and I appear before this committee to discuss it whenever I'm invited to do so.

Fourth, my door is open to any member of the Legislature who wishes to discuss any concern directly with me.

In the final analysis, I am accountable every time I sign my name to my findings and recommendations. I am keenly aware that I am the place of last resort, and what goes with that is a great responsibility. Like every Ombudsman, I know that the recommendations which I make are just that: recommendations. Since I don't have the power to compel government to implement them, I have to rely on reasoned judgement, the sense of fair play and respect for the integrity of my office so that my reports will neither be ignored nor ridiculed, but acted on.

Yes, I'm accountable every day. But there may be some people who feel that's still not enough. To them I would say, remember that you can't simultaneously have a totally independent Ombudsman and a totally accountable Ombudsman. Somewhere we've got to find the balance, and that's what the people who drafted the Ombudsman Act did. They wrestled with that in Hansard. They debated it. "How do we do this? How do we make sure the Ombudsman is at arm's length, outside political interference so she can do her job, but yet is responsible for the money she spends?"

They reached a graceful balance in the Ombudsman Act, for they knew that an Ombudsman is a sign that the Legislature is concerned about complaints of the people about unfair government action and a sign that government is willing to accept criticism as well as applause. The presence of an Ombudsman says to everyone, "You are protected from unfair, arbitrary and unjust actions of governmental organizations."

The people of Ontario deserve the best Ombudsman operation in the world, and I am determined to give them just that. I know you want them to have that. Isn't there a way we can work together to make that happen?

There are many outstanding issues for us to deal with. I'm sure you have many questions and concerns, but I don't think we'll have any foundation to discuss the issues between us until we discuss the issues of where my independence ends and the committee's mandate begins, where your powers reach a limit and where my independence cannot be disturbed. We each have our mandates. You as a committee of the Legislature have them under the standing orders given to you by the Legislature. My mandate is set out in the Ombudsman Act, passed by the same Legislature. Unless we have a mutual understanding and respect for each other's mandates, we're only going to continue with the misunderstandings of the last several years.

I'm not so optimistic that I believe we're going to reach perfect agreement as to how your mandate and mine interrelate or that we'll reach it today, but I do believe that, with effort and goodwill all around, we can reach accommodation, as other committees and other Ombudsmen have, a way of working together with respect in which neither of us is called upon to compromise the high principles we're pledged to uphold. Members of the committee and Chair, I am eager to begin that dialogue today.

1020

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Jamieson. Questions and/or comments?

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): Ms Jamieson, welcome to our committee. I really appreciate that you are here today. I'm a relatively new member of this committee; I didn't get on till about March or April of this year. Maybe because of that, I'm an appropriate person to start off, because I haven't been here, I don't have any sort of baggage from being on the committee before. I just met you today, though we've spoken on the phone earlier.

I agree with what you said today, that we've got to put the conflict that has developed between this committee and your office behind us. Because of that, I don't even want to talk about all those things you mentioned today, the recent history and some of those conflicts, because I think you're right: I think the way to start is, let's move beyond that now. I'm glad you came today and made the statement you did. Obviously, you felt it was important to do that, and I agree with you: It is important to do it.

To start that dialogue, I think we need to discuss the founding principles of your office, of this committee and what that interrelationship is if we're to get back on track. I noted that you're saying we have to discern what the limits of our responsibility and your responsibility are. I want to start more with the approach that we should really be a team, because in looking back at the history of ombudsmen in Ontario and their working relationships with this committee, I see it as being a team, and it should be a team, because as you have said, your powers are limited to recommending to government changes that you feel should be made. This is where this committee becomes your ally and I think a partner.

I've used this myself in my constituency; in fact, it was a very successful case I brought to the attention of the Ombudsman in 1986. The Ombudsman agreed there was a problem, still faced the same challenge I did, that the agency, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, still disagreed. The Ombudsman brought the recommendation to this committee. The committee agreed with the Ombudsman's finding and my initial complaint, brought it to the Legislature. The Legislature agreed, and that difficulty was resolved because the Legislature ordered it to be changed.

This is where I see this partnership, on these recommendation-denied cases, that we're allies. We're here as legislators. There are only so many people in this room, on this committee, who are actually part of the government, but in general in this committee we doff those hats of being a member of the government party or the opposition party; we come here as legislators. Possibly we need to discuss the makeup of this committee; maybe it should be more equally balanced so that it's the same number from each party to get that perception more, that we're here as legislators and not opposition and government people. But we're here as legislators to make sure that things are better. Your office is a valuable asset for us as legislators to do the investigative work, to discover where the inequities are in government workings in this province, and we can work together to try to correct those. I really see that as important.

Let's talk about some of these founding principles, because I think the crux of the matter today and what's developed between us is a misunderstanding on all our parts of the difference between the independence of the Office of the Ombudsman and the accountability of the Office of the Ombudsman. I'd like to refer to one opinion that I think is cogent to this, and that's the Review of Ontario's Regulatory Agencies report that Macaulay did a few years ago. He talks about this independence. He says:

"The Office of the Ombudsman is said to be `independent' of the executive, but at the same time is `accountable' to the Legislature." I guess that's what I've been saying about this committee that was very important: All of us on this committee, of all parties, are not part of the executive of this government. We are here as legislators, even though there are some members of the government party here. We come here as members of 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' and not `independence of action.' The Ombudsman, like many administrative agencies, ought to be `independent in his decision-making'" -- or hers -- "but he cannot be `independent of action,' otherwise he is unaccountable.

"May I say at once that the Ombudsman is not independent. If the Ombudsman is independent then there is no supremacy of Parliament."

I take it from the legislation that you have independence of decision-making, and I not only respect that, I'm here to protect that. I also say you have independence of the day-to-day operation of your office -- absolutely; I think that's correct. But I do feel there's got to be some accountability to someone, and in the legislation it says you are a servant of the Legislature. It's the Legislature that struck this committee to be the vehicle of accountability.

My first question to you would be, are you accountable, and to whom do you think you are accountable, and how do you see that accountability working?

Ms Jamieson: Oh, yes, I am accountable. That's why in my opening remarks I listed the number of ways. You're right, there has been a good deal of discussion on that. Indeed, if anyone looks back at the Hansard when the Ombudsman Act was passed, the legislators of the day struggled with that and they thought about it and they talked about it. They set out in this act a number of checks and balances to ensure that there was both independence and accountability.

How am I accountable? Fiscally, for the money that my office spends every year, the taxpayers' money, I am accountable. I go before the Board of Internal Economy. Every party has a member on that and the Speaker chairs it. It's through the Speaker to the Legislature that I report. They know the balance between accountability and independence. So fiscally, I report to them.

Financial transactions: Again, my act says the auditor audits me every year, and he does. For day-to-day operations, the act said the Ombudsman could lease premises, could hire her staff, deal with conditions of employment etc. Why? So that she would be at arm's length, so that government could not, by clipping or threatening to clip the purse-strings, compromise the ability of the office to do a good investigation. They also made sure that the term of office of the Ombudsman was long enough to survive the length of a government. All these things were to make sure the office was beyond the reach of political influence. So there was accountability, and I have accountability every day, fiscally to the board, the auditor, and to this committee through -- let's talk for a moment about how I deal with this committee, the role of this committee, because I think that's the crux of your question.

This committee is here for the Ombudsman -- again, it was discussed when it was created -- when the Ombudsman has exhausted all avenues to convince the government to accept her recommendations. Then I bring it to the committee and you bring the public scrutiny to bear on the government's actions. You are the ultimate weight of the Legislature and, hopefully, through this vehicle, you will pressure the Legislature to accept the recommendations. That is the primary role of this committee, as I see it.

Am I accountable to the Legislature? Yes, and there are very clear ways for me to be accountable. Am I accountable through this committee? I think not. This committee also deals with annual reports, and it's on that that I want to pick up on an earlier point you made. The annual report raises questions of policy that we should be discussing and that I'm sure are of interest to legislators. I am anxious to get into some of those.

1030

Mr Ramsay: Just one question, because you talked about the recommendation-denied cases: Because I'm a new member of this committee, how many of those have you brought to this committee over the last three years?

Ms Jamieson: Over the last three years, since I have been appointed -- let's look at the last two years. We brought no cases to this committee. Why? Because the cases are being resolved. When I was first appointed, I was in on the tail end of a case that had been brought by my predecessor. That was year one. The next two years -- and I have worked very hard at this -- we brought no cases to this committee because in each and every case we have been able to convince government that it should implement the recommendations. Have I compromised? No. Have I watered them down so that government would accept them? No. Has it been easy? No. Sometimes I've had to go to deputies, sometimes ministers, and last year, as you know, I had to go to the Premier on the case of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

That's my process. I'm supposed to go through all that before I go to this committee so that I can demonstrate to the committee when I come here that I have tried it all and I still can't make government move. That's when I come to the committee.

Mr Ramsay: So you have no objection to eventually coming to the committee.

Ms Jamieson: Next year there might be 15, I don't know. You'd never know that. The fact that there is an avenue to the Legislature, though, is important because that makes public servants sit up and take notice and take the Ombudsman seriously. Now, do we need a standing committee to do that? I say, in my special report, probably not. Maybe a special committee, because there is not weekly business to be done from me.

Mr Ramsay: I think I should talk about that, sort of what the assembly's assignment of responsibilities to us is in regard to the Ombudsman. It has changed over the years, but at present really it's, as you've said, to review the Ombudsman's annual report. It's also the formulation of general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his or her functions under the act, as are appropriate, and to review cases referred to the assembly by the Ombudsman.

We also receive and respond to communications from the public concerning the Office of the Ombudsman, and we deal with those. Actually, that's where a lot of our day-to-day, week-by-week activity comes in as we get these communications and we make a decision whether we are going to pursue them or not. I'll allow some other people to get into that.

One question I might have about accountability is that I think maybe one of the problems is that when we talk about accountability -- and I know the Australian review of the Office of the Ombudsman had looked at this -- you're accountable to too many different people and bodies and maybe we shouldn't have all these different locations of accountability; maybe the Office of the Ombudsman should be accountable to one body. You have the standing committee on public accounts for your estimates and the Board of Internal Economy and our committee to the Speaker, if you will, being the head of the Legislative Assembly. Maybe accountability should be concentrated and centralized in one place and maybe this committee is the place where all that function should happen. What would you think about that, if accountability were centralized in one place?

Ms Jamieson: If you're asking me if I think it would make sense to centralize it in this committee, I tell you frankly I have difficulty with that. This committee, it's no secret, is dominated by government members. It would be very difficult for me to convince the public that I am doing investigations from an objective point of view when I'm answerable to a committee dominated by government members. I did an opinion survey just after I was appointed to find out what the public knew about my office and what they thought. The area they were most sceptical on is independence. So I have great difficulty with that.

I also should say that I'm quite comfortable with the means of accounting. I don't find it confusing in the least or complex. I'm accountable. I have no problems dealing with the board, and it asks tough questions. It's no piece of cake defending your estimates there, but that's okay because that's appropriate. The balance there is right. They understand independence and accountability. The Speaker chairs that.

I know there's been some talk that maybe all the officers of the Legislature, or some of us, should relate to the committee on the Legislative Assembly in some way. I don't know where that's at, but I can tell you, for my office to be accountable to this committee, frankly, I think not.

Mr Ramsay: Is that your main objection? I share your concern about that. This committee basically is structured like any other legislative committee in that it represents the balance of the sitting members in the House. That is right and proper in a democratic state for all our committees, but I think you raise a very good point and I agree with you that probably this committee should not be structured thus and I think we should maybe change that.

That gets me into what we're doing here. I think this is where a basic misunderstanding has occurred, and it may have to do with the wording of the mandate the Legislature gave us over the summer as to what we were about. When it said we were to do a review of the office, as we had asked for in our report, the misunderstanding may be that we were not looking to do a review of the workings of your particular office and how you run the Office of the Ombudsman.

We have an act here that is 17 years old. As legislators we're here day to day to make sure that everything is modern, up to date and the best we can do at the time. From time to time, in all aspects of government, we take a look at legislation to see if we should be bringing it into modern times. What we want to do is take a look at the Ombudsman Act, because much has occurred in 17 years in regard to the rights and freedoms of people in the country, the ways they have of receiving justice. So we're reviewing the legislation. I wish, on second thought, that's what we had requested because that's what we meant and that's what the order read, because we're not reviewing your office; we're reviewing the legislation of the Ombudsman to make sure it reflects today's realities.

Ms Jamieson: I appreciate, Mr Ramsay, that may be what you would like to do as a member and I respect that. I have great difficulty, however, given the way this all came about, accepting that. I think that's what you wanted to do and I hope that's what will happen, but that is not what the history of this subject is.

I speak in my special report, which I had to table because I couldn't get a meeting to discuss it, that if you want to do a review of the act, of some of the -- the committee asked me some questions last year about jurisdiction and so on. I spent a lot of time on that subject and I put it in my annual report and I'm anxious to talk about it, but that's not how this review came about.

For a review to be done properly, involving an office of an officer of the Legislature, I hope there would be some respect extended. I hope there would be a discussion with that officer about the terms of reference, suggested questions, suggested witnesses, but none of that happened in this case. If you look at the questions, you will see they are not about the act solely; they are about all kinds of other things. They are intrusive and they cross the line and that's why I had such difficulty.

I'd be happy to discuss, however, how we can do the other: how we can look at the act. It is 17 years old. I have some things to say about it, I've been saying them in my annual report and I'd love to expand on them. So if we can get on to that, terrific.

Mr Ramsay: My last comment would be that I hope, on a subsequent meeting to this, that we could sit down together, all of us, and sort of establish terms of reference of how together we could proceed, because we don't want to do this independently of you. You, right now, are the best expert in this province as to the operations of an ombudsman's office and obviously would be the person with the best ideas of how to improve how an ombudsman would act in Ontario. We want to work with you on that to make sure we have the best Ombudsman Act in the world. I think we share that goal and I hope after this meeting we'll be able to sit down and work on that together.

1040

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ramsay. Mr Mammoliti, if you will, please.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I'm next, am I? We're not going in rotation, then, I assume. Thank you very much for coming. I appreciate having the opportunity to ask you a few questions personally. There are a few things I need to ask. I think you're right in terms of some of the comments earlier that some of the allegations that had been made may be unfounded. That's one of the reasons I need to ask some questions, because I'd like to find out whether or not some of those allegations are true.

The only problem I have at this time is that I might have to hold on to some of the questions I wish to ask, for a while anyway. Perhaps it might be a good idea for me to come and see you and ask you separately. The review is certainly one thing, and I think that certain questions that pertain to staffing and some of those allegations might be another, so we may want to talk about that separate from the review, but there are a couple of things that I'd like to ask in response to some of the comments you've made.

First of all, a comment from me. I disagree with you in terms of accountability. I don't think that we would be, as a committee, a servant of the Ombudsman. I think that the Ombudsman would be the servant of the Legislature, and this committee being a part of the Legislature, I think that it would extend to this committee. You obviously disagree with that, and I think we're going to have to do some talking in terms of how the act should change to make that a little clearer.

I wanted to be very specific about that because I really believe that this committee should have a role to play and that this committee, as members of the Legislature, is accountable to the public. The public expects this committee to deal with complaints and areas of complaint, as it has done in the past, and as other ombudsmen haven't really had a problem with that, I think this committee does have a role to play. I want to talk a little bit more about that and how we would achieve that.

Having made that comment, I'll go on to how I agree that in the past communications have lacked between this committee and your office. Whose fault that is, I don't know. I think we have a lot of work to do in terms of communicating a little better and working together.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that you had attempted to meet with this committee a number of times and that somebody had chosen to ignore you. Perhaps you want to answer who ignored you, in your opinion. What avenue did you take to try to get meetings with this committee?

Ms Jamieson: You've covered quite a few subjects. First, let me go back to the beginning. Do you have a question to put on the issue of staffing?

Mr Mammoliti: Yes. I'll get to that later on.

Ms Jamieson: I'm troubled by the vague comments.

Mr Mammoliti: I'm going to respond to the areas that you touched on in terms of staffing in your opening remarks.

Ms Jamieson: I don't want to let it go too far, so why don't you put your question, if you have one. Alternately, you're free to come and see me any time if you have a concern.

Mr Mammoliti: I have a few questions. First, whom did you try to get hold of? What avenue did you try to take over those few months that you talked about in terms of getting in front of this committee? Did you write letters? Did you make phone calls?

Ms Jamieson: I wrote letters. We made phone calls.

Mr Mammoliti: Whom did you write those letters to?

Ms Jamieson: It's all on the record. I wrote a number of letters to the Chair. We made calls. Those are all a matter of public record. I believe you tabled a number of them, the Chair did and there are others. You have them.

Mr Mammoliti: They stated that you wanted to have a discussion with this committee, a meeting with this committee.

Ms Jamieson: And the subject of the discussion: to sort out mandate.

Mr Mammoliti: The word "ignored" troubles me. You said that you were ignored. As a part of the committee, I feel an obligation. If we ignored you in any way, I'd like to know how. If you feel that your letters were ignored, were they not responded to?

Ms Jamieson: As an officer of the Legislature, one expects that when you ask to meet with the committee that you relate to, that you rely on, that is your partner in making sure government cleans up things that are wrong, and you don't get a positive response, I call that ignored. If that goes on for months, I don't know what you call it; I call it ignored.

Mr Mammoliti: Perhaps the Chair might want to take a note of this, because I certainly would like to hear from the Chair later on.

The Chair: Mr Mammoliti, I am going to give a clarification here. We can only meet with the Ombudsman while we are in session. While we are not in session we have to be under special orders of the House to meet, such as we were this past summer.

Mr Mammoliti: Okay.

Ms Jamieson: I don't know how much you want to get into this. I don't really, but the record stands. I asked for meetings in the spring, particularly right after you tabled the 19th report. The House was in session. Do you want to go on to your next question?

Mr Mammoliti: Yes. The word "ignored" still bothers me.

Ms Jamieson: Me too. Imagine how I feel.

Mr Mammoliti: In my opinion, I don't think the Chair ignored you. I think the Chair, with the subcommittee of course, followed procedure. So I'm not too pleased about the word "ignored."

You talked, in your opening remarks, about 30 turnovers in your stay so far in the Office of the Ombudsman, 40 in the previous Ombudsman's stay and 30 turnovers in the last two years, I believe, in your stay. Am I correct in saying 30?

Ms Jamieson: Three; 30 in three.

Mr Mammoliti: Where does 30 come from?

Ms Jamieson: A calculation.

Mr Mammoliti: That's 30 in two years?

Ms Jamieson: Three.

Mr Mammoliti: Three years, I'm sorry.

Ms Jamieson: And 40 in the preceding three, before my time.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, you made that quite clear. With regard to the 30 in your stay, in terms of moneys, in terms of fiscal responsibility, how much did it cost the taxpayer to pay the individuals who left in terms of severance, court cases, lawsuits or whatever else has happened with those 30?

Ms Jamieson: Mr Mammoliti, what is your concern? I don't understand what your concern is.

Mr Mammoliti: I'd like to know how much the taxpayer paid for these 30 individuals who either got fired, were let go or resigned.

Ms Jamieson: If you're asking if I was fiscally responsible during those times, absolutely. The Ombudsman has to live up to the laws of the province of Ontario. I know I have to. If I'm going to criticize other people, If I'm going to be able to look at government with a critical eye, I'd better be pretty close to model administration as I can get. Fairness? Yes. Is there an open process? Yes. Do we take pains to be fair? Yes.

Mr Mammoliti: My question is, how much does it cost?

Ms Jamieson: Am I fiscally responsible? Yes. The auditor, frankly, has looked at each of those years. I have received exemplary audits. As a matter of fact, he looked at just that question, as he did with a number of agencies, and there is no issue.

The Chair: Just for a point of clarification, please, there has been a comment made here that I feel I as Chair and we as a committee must address and clarify.

On May 28, 1992, the committee tabled its 19th report. On June 25 you responded. On July 21 the committee wrote the Ombudsman telling her we were beginning our review and required some background material on the work and the operations of the Office of the Ombudsman. On July 22 the Ombudsman wrote to say that our letter dated July 21, 1992, does not mention her request of June 25, 1992, and stated that a meeting must be held before she would consider giving consideration to the committee's letter of July 21. On July 23, 1992, the Legislature passed a motion which authorized the committee to hold hearings in August for the purpose of conducting a review of the Office of the Ombudsman. On July 27 the committee writes her, acknowledging the letters of June 25 and July 22, 1992, and invites her to appear before the committee. On July 29 the committee writes the Ombudsman to invite her, and on and on. I just felt at that point that there was a clarification needed.

Go ahead, Mr Mammoliti.

1050

Mr Mammoliti: The 30 staff turnovers over the last three years cost how much money in terms of severance?

Ms Jamieson: Mr Mammoliti, I would really like to know what your concern is. What's your issue? Do you think we're spending too much money? Do you think I should account to you for how I spend every nickel and dime in my office? This line of questioning is the very line of questioning I spoke about earlier. It's the very line of questioning I saw in the summer, and I saw you pursue it. I am really wondering, what is the point of all this?

Mr Mammoliti: I'm responding to your opening remarks.

Ms Jamieson: I'm really wondering if this is about attacking the credibility either of me as a manager or of my office. I really wonder, and I'm sure the public is wondering, what the motivation is for this questioning.

Mr Mammoliti: I think that you've put your back up against the wall for no reason at all. You had made opening remarks that referred to 30 staff turnovers in three years.

Ms Jamieson: Right.

Mr Mammoliti: My question to you is, how much did it cost the taxpayer to let these staff members go? I don't think that's a harsh question. I don't think it's a question that can't be answered.

Ms Jamieson: I don't think it's a question that can't be answered either. I wish it were a question that you would call me up about personally and ask. You have never chosen to call me on any of the issues that you have raised. Indeed, the Board of Internal Economy is the correct place to put that question.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mammoliti.

Mr Mammoliti: Mr Chair, I'm not finished with my questioning.

The Chair: We will come back to you, Mr Mammoliti.

Mr Mammoliti: Will I get an opportunity?

The Chair: Yes, you will.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): We certainly appreciate your being here. I guess I have to take some -- I don't know what I'd call it, but I wasn't too happy with some of your opening remarks too because, as George was saying about being ignored, it's the first I've ever heard that we ignored you. I sort of feel bad like you do, because I thought you were ignoring us, and I didn't feel so good about it either. As you know, you talked to me once and I did come down to a meeting that I thought you were coming to, and unfortunately you couldn't come. So I felt a little ignored too. If we were ignoring you or if you felt we were, I certainly am sorry for that, but I don't think this committee ever in any way wanted to ignore you and went out of its way to do that. So I want to clear that up, because if there were some problems with correspondence, then I guess it happened, but we certainly would like to talk to you any time we can, as you know.

There are two different things. There's a review and there's what you're doing today, just talking as Ombudsman to the committee. But we certainly didn't ever go out of our way to ignore you and have you here to discuss things, because this is why we're into this problem. We certainly are doing the review, like David said, just because in 17 years there hasn't been a review, and I think something should be done. Maybe some of the things we're doing upset you, which is unfortunate, but when you do reviews I think all kinds of things may happen in reviews.

We have in the past tried to work with your office and with you on some cases. Now, you mentioned that you haven't brought any cases to us where you're having a problem with the government. But then where do we sit in this whole spectrum when people bring cases to us where they feel they've had trouble with your office? Nowhere have we stated that we think we should ever, ever have anything to do with your decision. That's your decision, and that's what you come up with. But the public out there sometimes think maybe they haven't been dealt with fairly, so they come to this committee. This committee has in the past, I know, requested information from your office and we haven't got it, because you felt that you shouldn't give to us. Now, in the past, other ombudsmen have told us that they used to try to work these things out. We were never, ever trying to, as I say, get into your decision-making, but maybe there's something wrong going on in your office, and we're here to work with you, not against you. We wanted to say, well, you know, "Tell us what happened."

I know you mentioned that all the cases are being looked at, but some people seem to think it's taken over two years. I know you said that was myth, but I think probably if we look at it, there are some cases that have taken a long time. Maybe there are circumstances why that's happened, but I think as a committee we have to know that, because there has to be some accountability with you to this committee to the Legislature. That's what we are, the legislators, and after hearing what David said about maybe this committee should be evenly represented -- I don't know, all other committee aren't -- that's something we could look into, the whole picture of it, when we're doing a review. Maybe even the government of the day may agree with that. I don't know; we've never discussed that. But there could be things like that.

So there's this big frustration built up with us towards, say, your office, and maybe in the same way you have a frustration with us. That's why we're here today, hopefully to start a dialogue.

I can agree with you on what's happened in the past. We can just throw it all out, okay? Let's start today new. But boy, if we're going to start today new, then we have to ask you some very direct questions, and you may not like some of them, but I feel that you're too defensive. I'm just telling you this is what I feel. You're thinking we're out to get you for some reason, but that's not the case. We're out here just to find our role and how we work and give our public a better service, and that's with us working with you on cases you can't solve with the government and maybe cases people feel you haven't solved properly for them.

What do you think of that? That's what we're trying to get at here.

Ms Jamieson: I welcome the fact and I am very hopeful that this will get us off on the right foot. The pointed questions I welcome, because that will help us to straighten some things out. I think that's where the disagreement, or the perception -- a misperception has happened.

Your first question: What do you tell people who come to you? I think you tell people that the Ombudsman is the place of last resort. That's why we created it. It's a place where people go when, as Mr Justice Morand said, they've lost their case with government. This is one last chance. "Ombudsman, you look at it and tell us if there's been something unfair here or not."

Nobody likes to hear no. Let's be frank.

Mr Murdoch: I agree with you there.

Ms Jamieson: Nobody likes to be told no, but what I suggest you tell people who come to you is: "We created the Ombudsman as the place of last resort. If she said no to you and you have concerns about it, write her a letter, because I know she has a system in her office that will look at complaints from the public about how she did her job. And if you're not happy with that, then I'm sorry. We've set the Ombudsman up to be the place of last resort."

Mr Murdoch: But we are a committee to work with you, so is there a problem, though, that if they've come to our committee, are you and our committee working? We're not saying you have to change anything, but at least come in to us and say, "This is the way it is and this is the case."

Here people are willing to send us their documents and things like that -- and I have no problem with that, them signing in that way -- but now we clearly have a problem.

I agree with you: When somebody's turned down, they're never happy. I've been a politician for a long time and I know that. But the people out there have elected us as politicians too, all over Ontario, and they expect us to have some accountability to them and be able to work with you.

I'm saying this is where I think in the past -- I've been here two years, and we've had some problems and we have had some cases.

Ms Jamieson: That's right.

Mr Murdoch: You have responded quite clearly that you did not want to discuss them with us. It's fine for us to help you, but I think you have to help us.

Ms Jamieson: I agree with you. We have to find a way of giving this committee the information it needs to do its job, but a way also that respects the independence and the confidentiality that I have to live up to.

This is not a creation of Roberta Jamieson.

Mr Murdoch: I understand that.

Ms Jamieson: These are things in the act I have to do, that the legislation requires of me.

On the people who come to you, if they're not satisfied, then I think the committee has to be clear. Either the Ombudsman is the place of last resort or it isn't. If you say to people, "Come on over to us when you're not happy with the Ombudsman," you are raising another expectation that somehow the committee is going to look at their file, find something wrong and overturn the Ombudsman.

Mr Murdoch: No, that's not our -- no, we've never made that --

Ms Jamieson: And we both know that's not the case.

Mr Murdoch: That's right.

1100

Ms Jamieson: I guess what I'm saying is that we've got to find a way of first being clear between us and then being clear with the public about what can or cannot be achieved, and we have to both be comfortable. You're right that we have had some problems over the last year. I'll tell you why. When the committee tabled its report last March, it attempted to instruct me, in 10 out of 22 of its recommendations, on files I had seen. Now, that is over the line.

In the last several months, as recently as yesterday, we've gotten calls on files, both closed and open, that I am reviewing, from staff of this committee. That is not acceptable. You wonder why I'm confused and somewhat annoyed with this. Frankly, that's why. I think there's good reason, and yes, we have to talk about this to straighten it out, because we've got to get on the right foot.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm going to interrupt you for a second, Mr Murdoch, because I understand Mr Ramsay has a point of clarification.

Mr Ramsay: It's a supplementary on that. I'm just wondering if there's a misunderstanding here of how the relationship worked in the past. Is it not your understanding that in the past the Ombudsman and this committee worked on these cases that came from communications from the public to the subcommittee of the Ombudsman committee of the Legislature, cooperatively worked on resolving these things, not the outcome of the case but because the complaint came in that it took three years to resolve it, whatever the case was, or that there was a body, possibly, of evidence that the complainant brought in that the complainant did not feel was looked at thoroughly, whatever that complaint was, but again, not on the decision? Are you saying that you're changing that policy?

Ms Jamieson: No. I think that if you look back over the history of the office, different committees and different ombudsmen have worked differently. There is no one way they have functioned, and that's what we need to find: the accommodation. How can I give you the information you would like to have, and how can you respect my job and the mandate?

For example, if you have an individual concern being raised with you about a file and the committee has written me, what I answer back to the committee is, "Look, I can't discuss that particular file with you, the specifics of it, but I can tell you my process, my policy, my procedure." I have done that. Over the last two years, there are a number of letters back and forth on that. But on the specifics of the file, I'm afraid I just can't do that under the act. But on what my process is, absolutely. What's my procedure? Absolutely. I invite the committee to give me ideas for improvement. I've done that.

Mr Ramsay: I think we certainly need to work on that, because it's my understanding that when the committee has asked for information we feel is not pertinent to the case itself, but to the process of the case, there hasn't been that cooperation because you see your operation as absolutely, totally independent in every way.

Anyway, let's put that past us, because I think we need a new slate here. I certainly don't like some of the things that have happened here this morning already. I think it's destructive to your office and I think it's destructive to this committee, the Legislature and the government of Ontario. I want to start, as Mr Murdoch said, with a new slate here. I think we need to do that.

I'm willing to put everything behind us that is there, where it properly should remain. I think we need to start today and I think we need to, as of today, commence a new working relationship. I think we need to have more time, and maybe time in camera, working together to work out procedures that can be acceptable to both parties as to how we deal with communications we get, because there is the the principle of the supremacy of Parliament in this country and people do come to us in the end to say they weren't dealt with fairly. We've got to work with each other and I think we can find that accommodation.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Ramsay. Mr Murdoch, will you continue, please.

Mr Murdoch: That's the main thing, and David said it well. I'm willing to forget about what happened in the past. It's not as if it was a big mistake or anything. I just think we got off maybe on the wrong foot and a lot of us were new. People do come new to this committee and they wonder why we can't do that. Like David said, maybe we'll have to go in camera for a few meetings to flood some of these things out.

But we certainly do have to find a better working relationship, because the fact is that people do come to us, whether we like it or not, and say, "Why is this happening?" We have to work with you to give them the proper answer, I think. It has worked in the past, but you may not like some of the ways we want to work with you, and then I guess we're going to have to hammer them out.

That brings me back, then, to the review we were doing. That's why we did a review. If we're going to come up with a new relationship, then let's review the whole thing, because with that review we're going to hear from expert witnesses about some things that maybe we should do. We'll put them all into the pot and try to stir them around and come up with an excellent working relationship.

I'm sorry you felt that the review was against you personally. I think you've taken it that way, it's just the feeling I get back, and it wasn't. It was that if we're going to come up with a good relationship, then we have to do it this way. Since it was 17 years and nothing's ever been done, I think we're quite justified in doing that.

Maybe, as you said, we should have talked to you first. Well, we're having problems getting you here. You said you were having problems in getting here, so obviously there have been some communication problems. Now you're here. It's a good start, but I'm just saying again, don't be so defensive. We're not here for Roberta Jamieson; we're here for the Ombudsman, whoever it may be.

Ms Jamieson: I certainly look forward to that. Let me be clear: This is not about Roberta Jamieson; this is about your officer of the Legislature, the Ombudsman. Roberta Jamieson took the oath and was appointed by the Legislature, but I have to operate within the act I was given. That's my job as an officer of the Legislature. I have to interpret that the best way I know how, with the best advice and with the public interest at heart. I think you're interested in honouring that just as I'm interested in respecting the role of this committee. I think you're interested in respecting the role I have to play, and I look forward to that.

Maybe I could offer something to the committee. We did something a long time ago now that I really think badly needs to be repeated. We had an orientation session where I went through the investigative process, where I am involved, where the committee comes in and so on. We had quite a good discussion and we reached an understanding. This was about in the spring of 1991, I believe -- April, if my memory serves me. We reached a good accommodation and we even wrote it down. But then, by the fall we didn't honour it, and so maybe we better get back to that and have a discussion and clarify, because you're right that there are a number of new faces around this table. I think that might well be worthwhile, and I volunteer to host that.

Mr Murdoch: Sometimes we may not agree with the way you interpret it, and that's why I say that's where we've got to sort that out.

Ms Jamieson: That's okay. That's healthy sometimes.

Mr Murdoch: Yes. We've got to come to an understanding that we both agree with it. Is Norm -- are you going to --

The Chair: No, that's not our rotation.

Mr Murdoch: All right, Mr Chair. I'll let you take somebody else then.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms Akande, please, if you wouldn't mind.

Ms Zanana L. Akande (St Andrew-St Patrick): I recognize and I appreciate your respect for the act and the fact that you're bound by it. But I think we'd all recognize that there's the act and then there's practice, to which Mr Ramsay had referred.

I think that basic to the problems here is how you see the players' involvement and where you see that it lies. You have recognized that the Office of the Ombudsman is the creation of the Legislature. You are independent in the decisions you make, and that's important. But you are responsible for your actions, or for how your office is carried out, to the Legislature.

The problem seems to come in where you accept that this committee lies. I believe I would have it seen as the representative of the Legislature, and that's not an opinion that is without support. As a representative of the representative of the Legislature, if this committee in fact represents the Legislature, then, using my old geometry that things equal to the same thing are equal to each other, that would make the Ombudsman responsible to this committee.

I know you stated just a while ago that is not how you see our function, yet that, I believe, is the crux of our difference in terms of opinion which makes our working together or our communication difficult. So I think that is the area that should be discussed rather than avoided, because that is the problem.

It's not a question of your independence in making decisions. I mean, if you didn't have that, it would make your office impossible and not able to fulfil the responsibilities it has. It is how you relate to this committee, and how you relate to it must depend upon what you see it as and your responsibility to it. I'd ask you to explain that to me. How do you see this committee in relation to or in comparison to how you see the Legislature in total?

1110

Ms Jamieson: You're right. The Ombudsman is a creation of the Legislature by the act. I'm an officer of the Legislature, and there are a number of officers. The way I see my relationship with this committee -- I have read the standing orders and I have read the debates when it was created. The thinking was that the Ombudsman needed someplace to take those cases which she could not convince government to put right. She needed to be able to bring them to the lap of public scrutiny under the public's eye -- a channel to get to the Legislature, representatives of the public.

It's for that reason that the committee was created. That's a very important role, whether there are 16 cases or none. The fact that governmental organizations know they potentially could be brought here to defend their actions in front of the public is extremely powerful. I see that as the central role of this committee.

Now, there are other ways that the Legislature has obliged me to be responsible and accountable. The act says, "You'll be audited." The process that's been created is to go to the Board of Internal Economy fiscally. So there are other ways.

There's one other role I do see this committee being involved in: the annual report. That is a vehicle for the Ombudsman to relate and to raise issues with the committee, with legislators generally, about trends in complaints, about policy questions, about matters that have been raised with me that I can't deal with and that I am troubled about: federal matters, for example; municipal matters, for example; issues that I think should have debate, services in the north, for example. Those are all matters I've raised in my last annual report that I would hope would be the subject of discussion among legislators. That's my way of bringing those forward.

Ms Akande: All right. As you've described the function of this particular committee -- I know that you also report to other groups -- you see it in two ways: first, as a way of your relating difficulties within the system, within the structure or policies that you think should be studied by the Legislature or by this or some other group, so as a vehicle for communication and possibly for study; and second, as a way of effecting what essentially are your decisions. That is where, I believe, we differ, and that may be the item we have to spell out, because I believe this committee sees itself as the representative of the Legislature, and as the Ombudsman is responsible to the Legislature, this committee sees the Ombudsman as being responsible to us. That is the difference on which this whole confusion, if I can call it that, or concern, pivots, and that is where we will either have to decide to agree to disagree -- and I don't think that would be profitable -- or to go forward in a way that puts accepted practice into a change in legislation which spells it out specifically so that continued confusion won't occur.

Ms Jamieson: What are the subjects the committee feels the Ombudsman should be accountable to it for if it's not decision-making and it's not fiscally related? What are the subjects the committee feels the Ombudsman should be responsible to it on?

Ms Akande: I think that's a good discussion, and we'll have it, but if I can put it generally -- so that everybody else can add the specifics, because I think now we're getting to it -- it's the operation of the office.

I have to say this as an aside: I'm happy to see that you're generalizations are also feminine. For most people they're masculine, but you have been speaking as "she."

I think it's the operation of the office, and I think that rather than talk around it, we should speak to it.

Mr Jamieson: Do you want me to speak to it, or have I been clear enough already?

The Chair: Just for a point of clarification, I will clarify that by reading our standing orders.

"Standing Committee on the Ombudsman which is empowered to review and consider from time to time the reports of the Ombudsman as they become available; and, as the Committee deems necessary, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act, section 16(1), to formulate general rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman in the exercise of his or her functions under the act; and, to report thereon to the Legislature and to make such recommendations as the committee deems appropriate."

Does that help you at all, Ms Akande?

Ms Akande: Has Ms Jamieson a copy of this?

Ms Jamieson: Yes, Ms Akande, I have it right in front of me.

The Chair: Would you like to respond to that?

Ms Jamieson: Well, only in so far as that I think it's very clear under the existing act that the operations of the Office of the Ombudsman are reserved to the Ombudsman. If the committee feels that's something they would like to change, then you may well be talking about legislative change. You may also be talking about a change in the standing orders.

Of course, that's the prerogative of the Legislature; I respect that. But as it is today, if you look at section 8 of the Ombudsman Act, for example, you will see that it's very clear. I ask you again, maybe it would be instructive for us all to go back and read Hansard again when the office was created, because people struggled with this question then. How can we have an arm's-length agency and say, "Yes, we're freed up for criticism," but then tug on the purse-strings? You can't do it and have the public respect the office. That's the problem.

Ms Akande: If I may, Mr Chair, just as an addendum to what I have said: You're quite right, and I think that's why the purse-strings are dealt with specifically by an entirely different body from this particular committee: the Board of Internal Economy. They deal with that and your budget; this committee does not deal with that at all. I agree with you: It would appear that we could tug at the purse-strings if we did it like that, so they made that quite clear.

I'm rather new to this forum, but I think what has happened is that previous ombudsmen, I understand, were able to work out in practice what we now have come to a disagreement about; I'm talking in terms of your office and this committee. Therefore, it may be because you're looking at a more strict reading of the act, I don't know. But I think that's the crux of the difficulty and those are the issues.

1120

Ms Jamieson: The last thing I would say is that in my special report I quote from the first two ombudsmen. I have to tell you that this issue has been a source of tension from the beginning between the Ombudsmen and committee. My analysis is this: When the office was first created, there was the debate, there was the understanding, there was the respect, it was independent, it was understood. As time went on, committees started to try and relate to the Ombudsman as they did every other body that was involved with a legislative committee and governmental organizations. We kind of forgot about that independent relationship, then we remembered again and then we forgot again. It's a cyclical thing. I thought, when this was going on, is this only this Ombudsman? No, it isn't. I went right back to the time of Maloney and Morand, and they too experienced this tension, they too experienced the difficulty. It's that delicate, graceful balance that we have somehow got to reach so that I can do my job and you can do yours, for the public.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I'd like to begin just by clarifying something we talked about. The language of standing order 104(h), which the Chairman has just read to us, would certainly convey to me that this committee is empowered by the Legislative Assembly to look into matters relating to management of your offices, to doing, in fact, what I believe this committee has done with the ombudsmen before. Is your problem with the standing order, or do you think the standing order in effect doesn't have a legal backing within the act? Is that your position?

Ms Jamieson: You and I would disagree that the committee has a mandate to look into management of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Mr Sterling: You don't think that's what that standing order says.

Ms Jamieson: No.

Mr Sterling: Okay, so you think the standing order is incorrect, that it doesn't give us that mandate.

Ms Jamieson: And I think every one of my predecessors has thought the same thing.

Mr Sterling: But I want that clear, because I think then we should change the standing order to give us that right. The other part I had found intriguing about testimony to date was that you refer to the Board of Internal Economy. You were concerned about the impartiality of this committee. I believe the history of this committee, regardless of whether we were in a minority Parliament, whether we were in a Conservative government, a Liberal government or an NDP government -- although I don't think the NDP government has really been able to deal with it and has a historical context, because there hasn't been the relationship that existed before -- is that this committee probably has acted more independently than any other committee of the Legislature that I know of. The Board of Internal Economy, I think people should know, is always dominated by government members. That is even true in a minority Parliament, so that committee is less objective than any other committee of this Legislature. It's chaired by the Speaker, but dominated by government; they are government ministers who sit on that particular committee, so in terms of the voting power of the Board of Internal Economy, it is always dominated by government members. Therefore, to me, in terms of pure numbers, you would have a better break, or anybody would have a better break, in terms of objectivity, on another committee.

Maybe we do need to change the standing orders to have an equal representation in here of all parties. Quite frankly, if I were in government, I don't think I would fear that, but I don't think that has been a demand of the opposition, ever, because it has always been the feeling of the opposition that government members, when they walked into this committee, left their party labels outside the door.

That has been the general feeling of this Ombudsman's committee that I have known over the past 15 years, so it's never been an issue in the standing orders. I negotiated the standing orders for my party on two or three different occasions, and the independence of this Ombudsman committee, the idea that it was ever being run by the government, was never an issue, has been an issue in terms of the last seven years that I've been involved. I find a great deal of difficulty with your concern over the independence of this committee in terms of this committee saying, "We're going to back the minister up with regard to this individual" if a case is brought here. I just don't think the history bears that assumption or conclusion out.

I'm very much concerned about the Office of the Ombudsman. I'm very concerned about your response to Mr Mammoliti's question. I believe he has the right to ask that question and I believe you have an obligation to answer that question. I don't think you have the right to ask him what his motives are. I think you're deflecting the issue and you're creating more suspicion as to whether or not you're covering up some problem that exists. Why don't you come in front of this committee and be forthright?

We are interested in protecting the Office of the Ombudsman so that you or the next Ombudsman or ombudsmen always will have the best possible office and will be acting in the interests of the people of Ontario. I'm quite concerned about your reluctance to be accountable to this committee. If you refuse to give that accountability, then I am quite willing to support this government in changing the Ombudsman Act in law to make you accountable to this committee. We may have to negotiate how the makeup of this committee might be, but the time has got to come when the people out there can be assured that there is an Ombudsman office which is in fact accountable to somebody. You have to be accountable to somebody, and the accountability is being denied to this committee.

I take it from your answer that you do not believe you have the responsibility to come and talk to this committee about the management of your office. Is that correct?

Ms Jamieson: Yes.

Mr Sterling: Thank you.

Ms Jamieson: If I could respond, Chair?

The Chair: I didn't realize there was a question, but by all means, go ahead.

Ms Jamieson: I think quite a number of issues were raised in what Mr Sterling said. I am very troubled by the fact that you think I am unwilling to be forthright. I am very forthright. What I am concerned about --

Mr Sterling: Well, answer Mr Mammoliti's question.

Ms Jamieson: I'd be happy to provide those figures.

Mr Sterling: Okay, then answer it. Don't attack his motives, answer his question.

Ms Jamieson: I'd be happy, Mr Chair, to provide those figures this afternoon.

Mr Sterling: Okay. That's fine.

Ms Jamieson: But what I am concerned about is the fact that the committee feels that the Ombudsman -- or at least some members, not the committee as a whole, because I don't get that feeling -- is accountable to it for day-to-day operations, for management and so on, when it's very clear in the Ombudsman Act -- and I didn't create it; the Legislature did -- that I, as the Ombudsman, am given the independence to lease office space, to have a staff etc. I live up to the highest standards possible in doing that, and I'm very concerned that the member does not feel I am forthright.

What I am also concerned about is that we don't add to the public's view, which has been expressed to me on many occasions and, I'm sure, to this committee in writing, that somehow the Ombudsman is being subject to a committee which does have a makeup of government members as a majority and leaves the Ombudsman open to being controlled by the very government she is pledged to investigate complaints about. I don't happen to want to give any more fuel to that thought. I'm very concerned about that.

I also want to speak to the point the member raised about the Board of Internal Economy You're right: Even on that the government has a majority. Nothing's perfect, but I'll tell you, with the Speaker as the chair, you do have the ultimate independent officer of the Legislature there. You do have the balancing between independence and accountability evident.

1130

Mr Ramsay: That's not a public process.

Ms Jamieson: That may be something you'll want to check with them about, but it is a process that brings that balance. There may be better ones, there may be other ones, and the committee may wish to turn its attention to that. But I would only ask that as you consider how you want to change or if you want to change the relationship between the Ombudsman and the Legislature and this committee, that you have those things in mind, because, I'll tell you, that is the one area the public is most worried about: "Are you independent? How do we know you're independent?" Those are the questions I have to answer every day.

Mr Sterling: Can I ask a supplementary question here?

The Chair: By all means, Mr Sterling.

Mr Sterling: I don't think any member of this committee or any member of the Legislature wants to interfere with your independence with regard to making the decisions on a day-to-day basis, whether you're going to press the government to a response or whatever. I'm not interested in that. I am, however, interested in whether your office is properly responding to the citizens of Ontario and managing effectively your office and the tax dollars you are spending on their behalf. I'm interested in all those kinds of things.

If this committee came up with a recommendation that the committee would have an even number of members from each recognized political party in the Legislature, and if the Chairman was not a government member, would you then agree to be responsible or accountable to this committee?

Ms Jamieson: I'd like to respond to that. However, before I do, Mr Sterling, you may not be interested in how cases are dealt with, and I respect that --

Mr Sterling: I'm interested in it, but I'm not interested --

Ms Jamieson: I mean interested in this committee interfering with cases. I'm sorry. I can tell you that when the committee tabled its report last spring, it attempted to instruct the Ombudsman on a number of cases: 10 out of 22 recommendations.

Mr Ramsay: Not on the decision.

The Chair: As a point of clarification, Ms Jamieson, we asked you to provide information for 10 cases. We do not interfere with cases on this committee. Go ahead, Mr Sterling.

Ms Jamieson: No, I believe if you look at them, one requested reopening in particular. Have a look again.

Mr Paul Murray: No. Just clarifying that point --

The Chair: Legal research, please.

Mr Murray: Of the 10 recommendations, 9 of the recommendations requested information, either clarification of the conclusions in the reports to the individuals that the individuals weren't clear on, or on the matter in which the case was handled by the Office of the Ombudsman.

In one of the 10 cases, in light of the fact that in reviewing the case it came to light that a mistake had been made in terms of the Office of the Ombudsman's statement of the authority to reinvestigate an individual's complaint, the committee recommended that the Office of the Ombudsman reconsider its decision not to reinvestigate. The committee did not recommend that it be reopened; the committee recommended that the Ombudsman reconsider its decision not to reinvestigate. That was one of the 10 cases.

Ms Jamieson: If you look very closely, even in what you have said I believe you will see that the line was crossed. That's why I wanted so desperately to talk to the committee about that report and about those recommendations before they went any further. That's why I wrote my letter that said we need to deal with this subject so that I can do my job and you can do yours.

Back to Mr Sterling's question: If this committee were structured equally by members of all parties, that would certainly go a long way towards allaying the fear or concern of the public that somehow it's out of balance or that the potential would be there for interference. I think that would go some way, and certainly I'd be happy to give that further consideration and have further discussion, if that's something you'd like to seek my input on.

I know it's the prerogative of the Legislature to compose standing orders and to draft legislation. You may want to consider a change to both in this instance.

Mr Mammoliti: I'll tell you ahead of time that I have three very brief questions, Mr Chair, and hopefully we can get them answered.

I'll go right back to where I left off. Thank you very much; you've committed to reporting back in terms of how much it cost for the 30 staff turnovers in the three years. Can I also ask you to include with that information how many of those 30 were let go and how long all of those employees worked for the Ombudsman before they were let go -- how many years, how many months before they were let go -- and how many are in the courts at this time, how many are suing the Ombudsman for letting them go?

If you can include those four items for me this afternoon, I really would appreciate it.

Ms Jamieson: I hope to have it this afternoon. I don't see why we can't. Let me tell you this: I'm happy to provide it because I'm happy to put some facts on the table.

Mr Mammoliti: Good.

Ms Jamieson: I'm concerned that there is some feeling that things are not right, so I do so out of my own discretion; I provide that information.

Mr Mammoliti: Yes, I do appreciate it.

Ms Jamieson: I think facts should be on the table. If you want to know about lawsuits on the question of employment, there is one. There have only been three lawsuits in which the office has been involved since I've been there. One I inherited and two in the last three years. One is before the courts on the question of employment matters. I'm happy to put facts on the table because I think if you see and the public sees the facts, you will see that there are no facts that lead to some of the comments that have been made and that trouble me.

Mr Mammoliti: That's great. It'll answer a lot of questions as well. That's certainly what I want to do, is answer a lot of questions. I think by providing this information you will answer a number of questions, most of them being mine.

Two more questions, Mr Chair.

The Chair: By all means.

Mr Mammoliti: Your office instructed, if I'm not mistaken, a consultant firm to conduct a test. It was called the Fever Test, if I'm not mistaken. This Fever Test was supposed to indicate the morale problem, where the morale problem lies, how to resolve the morale problem in the Ombudsman's office and to give you recommendations in terms of how you could do that.

The first question I have in terms of the fever test is, who was the consultant you hired? The second question is, did you implement any of the recommendations the consultant made through this Fever Test in your office?

1140

Ms Jamieson: Thank you for the question. First of all, any manager, any CEO worth his or her salt in the 1990s does employee attitude surveys. Absolutely, I've done one, and I'll be doing another one again --

Mr Mammoliti: I think that's good, by the way.

Ms Jamieson: -- and hopefully on an ongoing basis. I don't know if you've been involved in one but they are terrific barometers. Yes, I did engage a consultant to assist us with it. Their name is Andros. I'm very happy to tell you that through the whole thing I had a joint employee-management committee called the navigation team running it -- terrific participation -- and have presented a report for implementation of recommendations. And yes, some of them have already been implemented, I'm happy to say, and there's more to come.

Mr Mammoliti: Do you wish to share what you've implemented with us?

Ms Jamieson: Maybe through the annual report I'll be commenting on some of the changes, as I normally do, to the office.

Mr Mammoliti: I would like you to be a little more specific in terms of what you've implemented from the recommendations in that Fever Test itself. What specifically did you agree with in terms of the recommendation?

Ms Jamieson: I can tell you that some of them have already gone forward; some are still being considered. Let me give you some examples of some of the things that have happened. I can tell you that there has been a change in delegation. I can tell you that there are a number of meetings that have been held, increased numbers of meetings, sharing of information. I can tell you that there have been some more operational changes that have been done to improve the office. There are quite a number. I am right now, as we speak, rationalizing the further recommendations with work plan, with the remaining budget in this fiscal year, so that I can see what we can do, what is possible.

Mr Mammoliti: Would it be too much to ask you for a copy of the recommendations from the Fever Test?

Ms Jamieson: Mr Mammoliti, that's an internal document; it is a bit much to ask for. I'll see, though, what information from it I can share.

Mr Mammoliti: Okay. I'd like to go on record as asking you for it, if possible, Mr Chair. If the Ombudsman chooses not to, that's fine with me, but I certainly want a copy of it. I agree with you that it's a good thing to do, but it's usually a better thing to implement the recommendations that come out of these good things that happen.

Ms Jamieson: I've been told that when you do these things -- and I made a decision when I did it -- that you don't do them if you're not prepared to implement recommendations; otherwise, you're raising expectations falsely. So yes, those will be implemented, but I think here, Mr Mammoliti, is where we do need to have some discussion. Telling you about it, yes; sharing some information, yes; providing the actual internal document, I think not. This is where I think we're over the line.

Mr Mammoliti: I don't know; I would think it would be a public document.

Ms Jamieson: You would? If you had a document like that in your office you would share it publicly?

Mr Mammoliti: Who paid for it?

Ms Jamieson: Well, of course, the taxpayers, but that doesn't mean every document in my office would be shared. All my investigative files? Heavens, you don't mean to suggest that.

Mr Mammoliti: I suggested it. You didn't just suggest it; I suggested that. Nevertheless, you have your opinion.

You talked about the employee assistance committee that was established. It was established with the previous Ombudsman, if I'm not mistaken. They had a number of tasks, a number of areas they were dealing with, and I know you made a number of changes when you got in there in terms of their role.

You also claimed that the navigation team that consisted of the assistance committee worked with the consultant to do the Fever Test. It also had responsibilities under your new grievance procedure within the office. You claim that everybody is happy and everything is hunky-dory in the office, yet you chose to neglect to mention the fact that this assistance committee had resigned recently because they're very unhappy. If they're very unhappy, I'd like you to tell us why. If they all resigned, I'd like to know that as well and the reasoning behind the resignations -- resigning not their positions with the Ombudsman, but resigning their role as part of the committee.

Ms Jamieson: Well, Mr Mammoliti, you're wrong. There is no factual basis for what you have said.

Mr Mammoliti: They didn't resign?

Ms Jamieson: They have just gone through new elections, so there has been a turnover, but not on the basis of resignation. There's been an election. There was participation throughout the office, and we've got a new slate for the employee relations committee.

Mr Mammoliti: So none of the previous --

Ms Jamieson: Not that I'm aware of.

Mr Mammoliti: They didn't resign. Okay.

Ms Jamieson: That's why I'm very anxious -- although I do again think this is delving into the internal operations of my office -- but in the interest of putting some facts on the table and dispelling some of the myths out there, I'm prepared to put them forward.

You're also wrong about who participated in the navigation team. They were representatives of the employees at large as well as management. The name of the committee I have is the employee relations committee.

Mr Mammoliti: At this time, thanks, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Mr Miclash, I understand that you have a question.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Yes. What I want to get back to is the actual working together of the Office of the Ombudsman and this committee. I think we've come to the conclusion that some changes are going to have to be made. I'm of the feeling that the Ombudsman, as an officer of the Legislature, is ultimately responsible to us, as legislators, and that we would have to in effect work together in terms of possibly doing the estimates through this committee. You mentioned earlier that you're responsible to the Board of Internal Economy, but the board is actually internal; it's not really a committee that is responsible, as we are, in terms of a committee. So I have to agree with a lot of what's happened here today in terms of the actual possible changing of the act and the clarification of that responsibility to the committee. I would like to have you maybe summarize and comment on how you feel about that.

Ms Jamieson: Thank you, Mr Miclash, for the question. My concern is only that the Ombudsman maintain the independence she needs to do her job, to deal with public complaints in such a way that the public will accept that she's at arm's length from political influence. I ask the committee, in all of its considerations, to keep that foremost in mind, whether you're talking about changing standing orders, the act or whatever, because it is critical to the public that they be able to go to someone they believe and accept is independent from the influence of politics, who will look with a critical eye at the actions of government. If people won't accept that, you don't have a credible Ombudsman, and that's really what you need.

I know the subject of estimates has been debated before, whether to give or not to give to this committee, and the decision taken so far is not. I think there are good reasons for that, and we talked about the purse-strings earlier. All of the officers of the Legislature right now go to the Board of Internal Economy for their estimates. That's the way the Legislature has chosen to deal with the officers, and I think in a way that balances accountability and independence.

The Chair: I understand you have a question, Mr Murdoch.

Mr Murdoch: No, just a statement to wrap up. I'd like to thank you for coming. I think we have to keep this dialogue open. That's what we're going to have to wrestle with in the rest of our review and when we come up with the final report: whether we clarify the act, where maybe you are responsible to this committee for certain things that at this point you may not feel you are. We'll have to clarify that. Maybe we'll leave it alone; maybe we won't. That's what the committee will have to decide. We think now that we are, and obviously we have some disagreement.

Maybe some of the questions Mr Mammoliti has asked could be done in camera when they have to do with certain people, but we have to figure out a way to do that. I think this is a start, and we have to meet with you again and go on and work that out, but I can see that there certainly is a real difference between the way you interpret the act and the way most of the legislators interpret it, so that's something we're going to have to work on as a committee. With that, I'll just wrap up, and thank you for coming.

1150

Ms Jamieson: Thank you, Mr Murdoch. I should clarify the fact that it has been a constant source of tension between the Ombudsman of the day and committees, over time, this balancing. This is not something that has happened in the last year or the last six months or the last three years. If you look back at the time of Mr Maloney, Mr Justice Morand -- I think you heard from Mr Justice Morand. You heard about the tension, you heard about the differences, so this is a long-standing issue.

For my part, the trick is to find accommodation, and I think it can be found. It was found in the time of Maloney. It was found in the time of Morand, and I think it can be found again. I am very interested in working on that with this committee. That's why I said at the outset, with goodwill all around, I think we can find that accommodation. You and I know how long it would take, even should you decide legislative change were required, but I've got to provide service to the public today and tomorrow and the next day, and so do you. So it seems to me we've got to get on with finding a way to do the balancing and find the accommodation and work together.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Murdoch. I understand you have a question, Mr Mammoliti.

Mr Mammoliti: Just in terms of accountability. I respect the fact that you look at the standing orders and the act in the way you do; not that I agree with your interpretation, but I respect that fact, and I want to let you know that.

If you don't choose to work with us in the capacity that we're asking you to on this committee, would you be prepared to work with the estimates committee in that capacity? Are you accountable at this particular time to the estimates committee?

Ms Jamieson: I think I've answered the fiscal part of my accountability, Mr Mammoliti. I am already accountable to the Board of Internal Economy for my estimates, to the auditor for my audit. I put my annual report before this committee. I'm accountable every time I sign my name to a report, and so I think I am already accountable.

Mr Mammoliti: You say you're accountable, but who are you accountable to?

Ms Jamieson: I've just listed --

Mr Mammoliti: We're all accountable to at least somebody or some people. Who are you accountable to? Yes, in terms of estimates, in terms of your fiscal responsibilities, you're accountable to estimates and to other committees perhaps.

I guess what I'm asking is that we've asked you for a number of areas in which we would like to work with you. You've chosen to say that in some of those areas, it's basically none of our business. That's what I read into it. Would you be willing to work with other committees in those areas? If not, just say you're not.

Ms Jamieson: I work with a number of other committees of the Legislature already who are considering legislation or who are reviewing issues that I might have a case about. I do work with them on that basis. Am I willing to answer to any other committees? Is that what the question is?

Mr Mammoliti: Pretty much, yes.

Ms Jamieson: My only concern is the same thing I mentioned to Mr Miclash, that in this job, if you're going to review complaints about the government, you've got to be beyond the reach of political interference. I didn't dream that up. That was done when the act was passed.

Mr Mammoliti: But nobody's looking to interfere here. Nobody's saying we want to interfere with your decision-making. But at the same time we have a responsibility, and if it doesn't say it in the standing orders, there are precedents in the past for it. Other ombudsmen, in terms of their opinions, have given some leeway towards this committee. You've chosen not to.

I've got to disagree in terms of the requests that were made by the subcommittee with those letters. I sat on that subcommittee, and at no time did we want to interfere with your decision-making at all. I think what you've basically told us here today, if I'm not mistaken, is that we're pretty much at your disposal and that we have to work for you, as opposed to us asking you to work with us at times, and to deal with particular problems that might arise. That's where I have a problem.

Ms Jamieson Then you haven't heard what I've been saying, Mr Mammoliti, because what I have been saying from the beginning of this morning, and what I hope is the note this meeting will conclude on, is that there are some tough issues to work out, no question about it, but there is also certainly a willingness -- in fact an eagerness -- on my part to find that accommodation. That's why I was wanting this meeting, and I have heard from a number of members today that they are just as eager to find that accommodation. I think that's where we should focus our efforts. I think we've gone a long way towards that this morning, and I'd like to continue to move forward on that path, because it's on that path that we will do the best for the public that we both serve. That's what we need to spend our time on, and I'm hopeful of a future meeting where we can do some more of that.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Mammoliti. Seeing no further questions and comments, and seeing that it's close to 12. I want to thank you, Ms Jamieson, for appearing before us this morning and taking time out of what we know is your busy schedule. Hopefully, we've cleared some things up. I would also request that if we need you to appear before us again you would be more than willing to do so. This committee stands adjourned until the call of the Chair.

Ms Jamieson: Mr Chair, I'd like to volunteer a couple of dates at this stage for a future meeting if you'd like to do that now, or would you like to get in touch informally?

The Chair: The committee will be in touch with you.

Ms Jamieson: Fine. Thank you.

The Chair: We stand adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1158.