Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

CONTENTS

Wednesday 13 December 1995

Ombudsman of Ontario

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Chair / Président: Parker, John L. (York East / -Est PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Froese, Tom (St Catharines-Brock PC)

Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L)

*DeFaria, Carl (Mississauga East / -Est PC)

*Doyle, Ed (Wentworth East / -Est PC)

*Fisher, Barbara (Bruce PC)

*Froese, Tom (St Catharines-Brock PC)

*Galt, Doug (Northumberland L)

*Hoy, Pat (Essex-Kent L)

Jordan, Leo (Lanark-Renfrew PC)

*Lalonde, Jean-Marc (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)

*Marchese, Rosario (Fort York ND)

*Parker, John L. (York East / -Est PC)

Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West / -Ouest PC)

*Vankoughnet, Bill (Frontenac-Addington PC)

*Wood, Len (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

*In attendance / présents

Clerk / Greffier: Decker, Todd

Staff / Personnel:

Kaye, Philip J., research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1008 in room 151.

OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO

The Chair (Mr John L. Parker): I call this meeting to order. We are joined today by the Ombudsman, Roberta Jamieson, who has attended this morning at our invitation. I have suggested to the Ombudsman that the floor is hers to use as she would wish. I've let her in on the nature of the discussion over the past few meetings, that we've been meeting to look at the mandate of this committee, a bit of the history of this committee, with some thoughts as to where we will go with the issues that are before us, largely arising out of what we've seen from the work of prior Ombudsman committees.

In that context, I invite the Ombudsman to join us today. Madam Ombudsman, the floor is yours.

Ms Roberta Jamieson: Good morning. Bonjour. Sago, in my language. I'm very pleased to be here this morning to share some time with the committee.

I was particularly pleased to receive the letter from the chairperson expressing the committee's desire for a productive relationship with myself as Ombudsman, and I certainly echo that desire. I would like very much to create a relationship with this committee that's cooperative and mutually supportive.

Also, you may know that my staff are working very hard, as I am, in getting to know a lot of the new members of the Legislature. We've had a number of orientation sessions with your staff, and I have been out and about meeting with members individually, all in an effort -- we do a lot of referral back and forth between your offices and mine -- to get good communication channels going.

We haven't had a chance to come to know each other in this context, so I want to use this occasion, if I may, to set out my views on ombudsmanship in Ontario, and, having done that briefly, if there are any special issues that the committee would like me to discuss, I'm very happy to do that.

In a general sense, I really subscribe to a statement made by a predecessor committee, namely the select committee, when in 1977 it said, "The essence of the relationship between the assembly and the Ombudsman does not lie in any legislative definition of jurisdiction, but in good faith, mutual respect and cooperation, with open and free discussion between this committee and the Ombudsman."

This year we are happily celebrating the 20th anniversary of the creation of the post of the Ombudsman by the Legislature. This office, as you know, was created not by government but by the Legislature as a whole in a non-partisan effort. By opening government to the independent review of the Ombudsman, it really put in place a key part of the democracy of this province.

The growth of the ombudsman institution along these same lines in recent times around the world and within our society is truly phenomenal. Asian nations, African nations, Mexico, South America, are all adopting ombudsmanship to deal with maladministration and human rights issues. The United Nations in particular is placing emphasis on the ombudsman as one of the fundamental institutions as countries democratize.

We also know that newspapers, corporations and other institutions are setting up ombudsmanlike offices, and whole sectors -- the banking sector, I guess, is the most recent -- are adopting the ombudsman model to mediate between the public and the power of the banks.

We also know that members of the Legislature, of course, assist their constituents in resolving issues arising from their dealings with government every day. However, members also recognized when they created this office that their own efforts need to be supplemented by an Ombudsman who would have strong investigative powers, who could review government documents and actions, take evidence under oath, who could undertake complex, time-consuming investigations, and whose findings and recommendations would be seen as objective statements which merited careful consideration. Access to the Ombudsman's review not only reassures the average person that all is well in government, but also offers the opportunity for discovering, analysing, diagnosing and remedying individual and systemic issues when all is not well, especially where there is unfairness.

The need for such an effective means of remedying actions and inactions which may be unfair by public servants is at least as great as it has ever been. Government's involvement in the lives of the people of Ontario has expanded dramatically in recent decades. The changing composition of Ontario's population introduces new challenges, new complexities, and for the last decade in particular the public has been increasingly demanding independent assurance that their governments are acting fairly in their day-to-day work.

There's no question in my mind as I travel throughout the province that continuing public confidence in government depends on the public at large feeling assured that there is objective scrutiny of governmental administration, that there is scrutiny against unfairness, arbitrariness and inequitable treatment as a protection of the public's interest.

Today, individuals, farmers, small business people, senior citizens, retired public servants are among those who take access to the Ombudsman as a right which they use when they've been treated unfairly. The Ombudsman, in turn, provides an accessible, efficient and flexible means of assisting those who might be most vulnerable to unfairness or least able to defend their interests in resolving a problem with a government official.

Students, housing authority tenants, injured workers, recipients of social assistance and many others seek the Ombudsman's assistance by the tens of thousands each year, and the range of complaints includes all types of maladministration, from bureaucratic error to biased decision-making to abuse of discretion. Many complaints involve delay in government service. Often the complaints involve issues that are system-wide or systemic in nature.

The resolutions: In some cases the resolutions of these complaints may result in reassurance that in fact the matter the person was complaining about was handled quite fairly. In other cases where government has not been so fair, it may result in an apology or compensation, or indeed a change in a policy, practice or regulation that governs the day-to-day action of public servants.

I think we find now, 20 years after the Legislature established the Ombudsman as its officer, there are even more reasons why an Ombudsman is necessary for people and the public administration alike. There is rapid change in the nature of government itself, no question, and this has begun and will continue. There is a reduction in governmental operations, and this has an impact. People look for reassurance that they're going to be treated fairly.

The fiscal environment has shifted. The potential margin for error has increased as public servants attempt to do more with less, and changes in jurisdiction certainly create new causes for complaint. In fact, to echo a predecessor select committee that stated it well -- this principle could never be more true -- they said, "The concept of the Ombudsman rests on the principle that Parliament is the protector of the individual against the executive and the Ombudsman is the weapon in Parliament's armoury for this purpose."

In creating this office in Ontario, the Legislature adopted four principles which really do characterize the ombudsman on an international level as well. These principles continue to be the foundation on which my office is based and on which we do our work.

First, investigations are to be made in an objective and impartial manner. To ensure that this was done, the Ombudsman Act provided protection against pressures by government, the public service and the political aspects of the Legislature itself.

Second, the Ombudsman was given a broad range of discretion in which to exercise her judgement, and she must be free to exercise it without interference. In this respect, the Ombudsman can really be compared with the judiciary, who similarly are protected from both legislative and executive intervention.

Third, the Ombudsman must be able to maintain the confidentiality which is required of her by law so that the public will seek her assistance and so that privacy will be maintained not only for the complainant but also for the public servant against whom a complaint has been made.

Fourth, since the Ombudsman has no power to enforce her recommendations, she is able to remedy unfairness only through the respect and confidence and trust which is shown for the integrity of the Ombudsman. The success of my work depends on the government's willingness, when all is said and done, to listen and to correct its errors.

1020

To maintain those four principles, the Legislature set its officer at arm's length from itself through the Ombudsman Act and provided a number of protections so that those principles would be observed.

First, they gave the Ombudsman a term of appointment which would make sure it went beyond the life of any given government, so that the Ombudsman would be free to criticize where she felt it was important or to raise government unfairness without being concerned about employment.

Second, they gave the Ombudsman the authority to rent office space and to manage her own staff matters on her own. They also gave the Ombudsman the power to conduct investigations and make reports as she saw fit when government was unfair.

On the other side, it certainly also provided for checks and balances to make sure accountability was in place: first, the requirement that an annual report had to be filed; second, the fact that audits must be done each year by the Provincial Auditor on the expenditures of the office; third, the fact that provisions were made for removal from office for cause if the Ombudsman was not performing her functions; fourth, the need for special reports to be tabled with the Legislature with full reasoning when unfairness was found.

They also set out a process in the Ombudsman Act in which I, as the Ombudsman, ultimately depend on the Legislature to obtain compliance by government organizations for any recommendations they don't voluntarily accept and adopt.

In about 99% of the complaints where I find government's been unfair, find in support, officials do in fact agree to implement the recommendations. We put a great deal of emphasis in my office on early resolution of issues where it can be done. However, there is that other per cent.

If government officials don't agree to implement the recommendations I've made, I then can take the matter to the head of an organization. If I can't get resolution there, I can bring the matter to the minister's attention. At the next step, I bring the matter to the Premier's attention. Right now, I have a number of cases that are at the first two levels. If, after all of that, I still can't obtain a satisfactory resolution, I may report the matter to the Legislature, and it's by tabling a special report with the Speaker. According to the standing orders, that report is referred to this committee.

Once I've raised it with the committee, at that point my work is done and I then look to the committee to do everything within its powers to see that the recommendations are enforced. I, in turn, must of course present the case with full reasoning for the committee.

I've made five such special reports to the Legislature. Upon tabling, two of them were settled before the committee held hearings and three proceeded to hearings.

I can't emphasize enough how important it is that that channel is there, how important it is that the Ombudsman has the power to bring a matter to the Legislature when government is not listening, so that the Legislature's powers and attention can be focused on it.

Public scrutiny at that time is given to the behaviour of government because, as you know, in the reports of the hearings that are held, the individual's name, who complained, is removed, but the agency is named, as are the officials. This is what's meant by the famous quote on the Ombudsman, "The lamp of scrutiny is brought to bear on government unfairness."

Public servants know that and the fact that they're aware of that, that their unwillingness to be fair, their unwillingness to correct errors, their unwillingness to implement the Ombudsman's recommendations can mean public scrutiny in the Legislature is a very key factor in their willingness to resolve cases satisfactorily.

In closing, I want to set out three or four issues which I feel are compelling and deserving of the Legislature's attention through this committee.

The first area is in regard to an innovation really in government which wasn't contemplated at the time the Ombudsman institution was created, and I'm referring to privatization of government services. I say not contemplated because numerous services which were once the exclusive domain of government and thus within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to investigate complaints about are now being contracted out to the private sector, which is not within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. As a result, people lose their right to complain about any unfairness and to have an objective review and investigation done of their complaint.

For example, we now receive complaints regarding non-profit and private agencies that have been contracted by the Ministry of Health and they provide, for example, residential care for children with serious psychiatric disabilities. We also receive complaints regarding agencies contracted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. These agencies provide group homes for young offenders under the age of 16. In most cases, at the moment it's not clear that the Ombudsman can investigate those complaints about the contracted agency, and instead we are challenged to indirectly approach the complaint by determining if the ministry which did the contracting is doing proper reviews of the agency. So it's really at a distance. In a practical sense, the clients of these facilities don't really have much of a right to complain.

I would hope the committee would consider delving into this matter and finding a solution that balances the rights and needs of all parties concerned and I certainly would be willing to cooperate, should you decide to do so, by giving further examples and ideas I may have on how this could be done.

A second matter is one reported on in my last four annual reports where I've described a rather unfortunate and unintended conflict that exists right now between the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Ombudsman Act. It's my hope that the committee might recommend that the FIPPA be amended so as to exempt documents that the Ombudsman Act requires me to keep confidential. Those two pieces of legislation just don't mesh at the moment.

A third area which I think this committee could serve relates to the question of ensuring that the people of Ontario have adequate means available to them to complain about municipalities, hospitals, school boards and children's aid societies. You know, it's really ironic to me that while so many sectors are now resolving complaints by using the ombudsman concept, significant institutions like these in the province don't have such a mechanism. People do not at the moment have the right to an independent investigation of unfair behaviour by these agencies. It's particularly compelling to me that a number of these agencies deal with children and people who are in medical care.

1030

Each year I receive about 3,000 complaints of this nature or about these institutions and I'm happy to talk with you about the kinds of complaints I get, but it's an average of about 15 or so each working day, often from people who have exhausted every available means of having their issue dealt with. As I've spoken to this in previous annual reports, there are a number of options through which the Legislature might deal with that situation. There are some really important issues here which I hope you would decide to address.

Those are my opening comments. I hope there will be many future occasions, formal or informal, in which we can continue to exchange views, especially at the initial stage of our relationship. I'm very keen to lay a solid foundation for a productive working relationship, which we both want and which is in the public interest.

If there are any questions on these comments, on any particular areas I've suggested the committee might address, or indeed on anything else, any other issues members might want to raise, I'm very happy to respond.

The Chair: Thank you very much. For the record, I should note that I began with the remark that the Ombudsman is here at our invitation and I failed to note that actually it was the Ombudsman who first contacted us and indicated she would be pleased to be available and meet with us. It was in response to that that the invitation was issued. In all fairness, it was the Ombudsman who suggested she would be pleased to meet with us.

I'm happy to place the meeting in the hands of the committee at this point. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): First, my apologies for being a wee bit late. It wasn't intentional but rather accidental.

I was interested particularly in your last comments as they relate to municipalities, hospitals etc. That came as a bit of a surprise and I think I have already directed some of those concerns to your office. What are your suggestions? Are you suggesting maybe a second ombudsman's office or rewriting the act so it would come under your jurisdiction? Do you have any thoughts or suggestions on how that should be handled?

Ms Jamieson: There are a number of options and let me just, off the top of my head, review what some of them might be. Cities themselves or municipal governments could create their own ombudsman. The only problem I would see with that: The pros are you'd have something there; the cons are you might get a checkerboard throughout the province in the standards that would be applied. I'm sure there are more pros and cons. It would be expensive, I would think, to duplicate it.

You could also have contractual arrangements. One could contemplate a municipality contracting the Ombudsman to provide that service. That's one option that could be explored. Another option, of course, is to create a special ombudsman for municipal governments, and another one is to rethink my jurisdiction to include municipal government. That's what's been done in British Columbia quite recently. In Manitoba the Legislature has created an Ombudsman for the city of Winnipeg. In Quebec they've just created an Ombudsman for the city of Montreal.

There are a number of experiences out there, in the United States and here, that the committee might want to draw upon in coming to some conclusion, but those are some thoughts.

My only worry about leaving it to municipal government to do so for themselves would be that it would be done in a way that ensures the independence. One city that comes to mind is Portland, Oregon. They have an Ombudsman, but it's something called -- it's like an executive Ombudsman, who works with the mayor, and there is always some question about how independent is that, and I think that is a critical piece that would have to be looked at.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much, I think that certainly covers the question. Thanks.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): Thank you very much for coming. It's great to see you, first of all. I didn't get the chance to come and visit you. It didn't work out, that time schedule when I initially wanted to come, and it's great to have you here.

Looking over the report, the Ombudsman's report, for the 20th anniversary, 1994-95 -- and maybe I should give you a little bit of background. I'm in finance or I came from finance, so my question will be that way, but the report is about 60 pages of report, and a lot of verbiage on what your office does and so on and so forth, but I'm very interested and concerned that the finance part of it is only a very small blurb on page 58, on top.

Your office total expenditure is $9.1 million. You had indicated in your submission a short while ago that you're concerned, and naturally so, to make sure that there are checks and balances. I'm a little bit surprised, being a finance man, that the report does not go into a whole lot of detail with respect to the checks and balances on the financial side, as far as accountability, responsibility, and I'd just like to know how you perceive that.

My understanding is previous ombudsmen have spent some time and some verbiage on exactly -- when you get into analysing or being fiscally responsible, I guess, in terms of cases, how many -- or the time that's being involved in each case versus the money that's spent on these cases versus the outcome -- does your office look into, and if so, why isn't it commented on in the report with respect to the dollars that are being spent on cases? Is it good sound judgement on looking into how much time is being spent, for instance, on cases and what value you are getting for the time that you've spent on that? Could you see yourself expanding on the financial data and reporting of what your office does?

Ms Jamieson: What's in the annual report on page 58 is -- I think in its entirety -- the audited statement which we print. I believe it's in its entirety, and that was a move to make it clear to the public what the statement is we were receiving from the auditor. You may know that the Ombudsman -- that our submissions for funding and any issues raised about funding are usually done with the Board of Internal Economy. So any more detailed questions -- that's certainly something we pursue with the board, as do the other officers of the assembly.

Are we conscious of value for money? Certainly, we make every effort to be. We in fact invited the Provincial Auditor to do a value-for-money audit, I guess it's two years ago now, which I tabled with the Board of Internal Economy also in its entirety.

We are very conscious of efficiencies. Do we do a per-case analysis on an ongoing basis of costs? No, that's not something we do at the moment, and it might be something we should do. We have taken a snapshot of that, and the last time I tabled that in the Legislature it was done in a special report, I believe in the fall of 1992.

Mr Froese: You talked about cooperative relationships, good communication, productive relationships with our committee. In your opinion -- and as you know, past committees have had some concern with where in relationship to your office -- and I think it's clearly defined in the act what the responsibility of your office or who it is responsible to, to the Legislature. I don't know if anybody has a complaint about that, but over the last committee report we have seen that there's been some -- how shall I say -- not a clear understanding of what the role is of this committee, between this committee and yourself. I just would like to know, in your opinion, what do you feel the role of this committee is?

Ms Jamieson: In my opening remarks, I tried to set out the Ombudsman process that is in the act and does result with me having the ability to table reports where government does not listen and put things right, and how ultimately that ends up with this committee. I also have the opportunity to have dialogue with this committee over issues raised in the annual report, and I've raised this morning a number of other issues where we could fruitfully cooperate to bring about reform.

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I'm not sure of the process here. Do we do it on a rotational basis or whatever?

The Chair: I was just responding to hands that I noticed but I don't want one side to dominate. You raise a fair point.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It'll come around to us.

The Chair: Carry on. We'll get to the other side next. Don't want to get too far off track.

Mrs Fisher: I'll just go with a couple of questions that there'll just be short answers, but I'm sure ones that we discussed in committee already, and I think all of us will have some interest in the answers.

I'm not too sure yet where -- and also reviewing the past reports, the audited statement and the bill itself and the act. First of all, how do you see complaints being brought to whom? Who do you see complaints going to, as they relate to the Ombudsman's office itself? I realize that ultimately we could end up with one bureaucratic system chasing the other, chasing the other, chasing the other and never getting anywhere, so I appreciate there could be a problem there.

I also should start by stating that I truly believe there should be an Ombudsman's office in the province of Ontario. I feel that it is the last right of appeal on the free basis and meant to be, and I'm sure it is, a fairness and an opportunity for people to have access without legal cost. So I totally support the functions that are set out in the act in establishing the creation of the office.

Having said that, ultimately, as you said, the Ombudsman responds to inquiries or concerns, I guess, raised by the Legislature. Tom sort of touched on this when we talk about then where do you go in the event that something isn't clarified and, in all fairness, from anything I've read, there has been a very tough relationship, I guess I will put it, one that we would very much like to change -- I'll speak for me -- one that I very much would like to change. I guess my first question is how do you see complaints regarding the Ombudsman's office or their activities? Where do you see those going and how do you think those should be handled?

Ms Jamieson: Are we talking about complaints about particular case decisions?

Mrs Fisher: Delay -- not so much a decision. I respect the function that we're not to be involved in the decision itself, but I guess your function is to ensure that fair process has taken place. I guess our responsibility ultimately is also to ensure that, even at that level, that fair process has taken place. In the event that somebody feels not, how do you think we should handle that?

Ms Jamieson: One of the things we do at our own office is make it clear to people that if they feel they have not been treated properly or appropriately during an investigation or during the intake of a complaint, we encourage them to complain, I have a look at it quite independently of the investigator and the people who worked on the complaint. I'll often give it to someone else in the office to review that and so there is our own internal review of how someone may have been treated. That's certainly one thing.

If it's a financial complaint, that would most appropriately go through the Speaker to the Board of Internal Economy.

Mrs Fisher: I guess that would lead to my next question as it relates to finance then. I don't know an agency, board or commission, or a ministry, or an employee of the government that should not be, or is not, accountable to somebody.

I respect the fact that the budget's not prepared by this committee, it's prepared by your office. I respect the fact that it goes to the board of internal management. I wonder, however -- that value for audit I'm a very strong supporter of, and I don't see a lot of it. I think that again Mr Froese was relating to that. I would really hope that to be serious about this from a committee perspective anyway, we could get into more of that with yourself.

To get a list at the end of an audited statement that merely says, "We had X number of occurrences within a certain ministry, or cases within a certain ministry" doesn't really help the committee. where the committee might be able to help itself with its own ministries, correct activities or actions that are happening there that are being decided out there in another world that we wouldn't even know about. I think we could lend more to each other that way in a supportive mechanism if we had, not details per se with regard to confidentiality disclosure -- we all have to swear the same oath and we all have a responsibility not to disclose -- but I'm talking about when you look at the auditor's statement and you take a look at page 57, for example, you will get into each of the ministries or areas where inquiry against somebody has been made. For example, in this case it's the Solicitor General and Correctional Services.

To avoid -- I think at one time when we did meet that once I think it was something like 32,000 calls, inquiries, that year. That should be somewhat reduced and some of that responsibility I feel lies with this committee to make sure that we're taking corrective action within the ministries where on a repeat basis you're getting a call and a call and a call, and it's not changing.

Now the occurrences of denials have -- I can't even understand how they go from 300 to three in three years. Something funny must be happening there, not funny in terms of skewing, but I don't understand how that could happen. At one stage, we were into hundreds and then all of a sudden in three years I understand went down to three, and I don't understand that.

My question is not to answer specifically today, but how do we open up that door for communication so that even as a committee we understand why we're here?

Ms Jamieson: You've covered quite a number of things in your comments, and I appreciate that your approach is to find ways that we can be mutually supportive. I'm not sure what you're referring when you say from 300 to three. I don't know what that figure is about. But you're quite right that when we report the statistics at the moment, we don't take them apart and say, "Ministry of Ed: 52" or whatever it may be. We did do this on the Solicitor General and Corrections. We get so many of them, and also to give a good idea of what they're about.

I know sometimes other ombudsmen have given a kind of a chart on this ministry, this many complaints. My worry about doing that is that it may lead people to believe, quite falsely, that a high number means a ministry is particularly poor. In fact, that may not be the case at all. A high number of complaints may also go together with a high degree of willingness to resolve complaints, and that's a positive statement. So I've been concerned about reporting in that fashion because it might lead to the wrong conclusions on the part of the reader.

1050

Instead, what we've done is analyse the complaints to tell people more what people are complaining about, not who they're complaining against. So in the report now, we do on page 21 the kind of top 14 list of issues that people are raising about government, and that tells you each year as that list shifts around what people are most worried about. We've done that sort of analysis to raise that.

If a particular ministry or agency, board, commission, tribunal is being difficult, there are two ways that can come to the committee's attention. One is I can raise it in the annual report, and at times I do give what we call tarnished stars and gold stars: who is being cooperative and who isn't. The other way is when cases come forward. If I can't solve a case, if a ministry is being uncooperative or obstructionist or difficult, I certainly will, having tried and done the process the way the act sets it out -- minister, Premier etc -- table a special report, and I have in the past, so that can be raised with committee.

Mrs Fisher: If we take a look at page 57 as an example, I just wonder if it wouldn't be more valuable -- it tells me that something probably isn't right when you see an increase. Let's take the top issue line here, "Health care inadequate or denied." When we see ourselves going from 750 cases to 1,085 over the period of three years, perhaps there's something that would avoid a lot of those complaints if we had an idea how to make the changes that would instigate those complaints to you to start with.

Whether it's a "value for" audit or whether it's -- maybe it's time to start where we communicate back and forth. The idea of the Ombudsman's office is not to create cases so the numbers can increase, I would think. The purpose of it is so that people have a last right of appeal, preferably with no legal-financial cost, where fairness is the issue, the process of fairness.

But what I'm suggesting here is, how can we better help reduce your number of cases so that we're doing our jobs and the people are getting legislation that is better, that doesn't cause the problems? The only way I would think we could do that is with some input back from you which is not to be found in the annual reports as they're presented now, but maybe it has to be special reports until we work our way through some of this to make it better for all of us. I just don't see where the match comes that we can do the check and balance, that the system we're creating as lawmakers, if you will, is conducive to reducing your caseload.

I guess your best-case scenario could be one case in a year, and that would be our best; it would mean we're doing our job well. But I see an increase in cases instead of decreasing, and I only from this get an example of one ministry. It would be disastrous, I think, to see the full run here, because it would just be huge.

Maybe there has to be another form of report-writing or case reporting or historical data so that we can help correct what's instigating all these cases to start with, and we're not doing that. I respect where your role fits, but your role should be diminishing, not increasing.

Ms Jamieson: Out of fairness to the ministry that's involved here, on page 57 --

Mrs Fisher: Without specifics; it doesn't matter.

Ms Jamieson: I think I need to point out that the cases have not gone from 750 to 1,085; quite the contrary.

Mrs Fisher: I'm sorry. You're right: the opposite way. I stand corrected.

Ms Jamieson: They've gone down from 1,085 to 1,211 to, in fact, 750. So it's gone down in that area.

I appreciate that the best-case scenario, as the member describes it, is to have the Ombudsman with one case. While that may be the ideal we're all working towards, I think that would imply a degree of perfection that's probably not humanly attainable. Every complaint that comes in the door, for me, is not an indication that government is terrible or unfair or not working; every complaint is an opportunity for improvement. When I talk to the public about the opportunity to complain, I spend a lot of time saying how in our office complaining is a positive thing and, aside from kind of voting once every few years about government, this is one way you can have your say and improve things. As long as public servants are taking steps to improve the system -- by and large they are -- then that's a good story, a positive story.

The more cases I bring here to committee through special report, the less the public service is working, is receptive, and the less the Ombudsman is being listened to and able to bring reform. So I appreciate the numbers aren't there for that, but that's a good message -- not a positive message -- and I think the fact that the numbers of cases are going up is about a few things.

First, people are more rights conscious today, absolutely, and they are very concerned that their money is being spent appropriately and returned in good-quality public service.

Second, they're more than ever now under stress, they're frustrated and they speak out much quicker. The private sector will tell you that as well as the public sector. So I think there are a number of things.

And third, I think we're doing a good job of public education so that people know when it's appropriate to come to the Ombudsman office. There are a number of factors, but I don't think it's necessarily bad that the number of people coming forward is on the rise.

Mrs Fisher: I guess there are two ways of thinking. I'm glad that there are, actually. I appreciate what you're saying, that because they don't end up here in denials perhaps the Ombudsman's office is doing its job well. That might be true. It's a fair comment. I believe, however, when they're on the rise it also tells me, with all due respect to the point that people are more aware and more conscious and more willing to speak out and take action and observe their rights, that there's something wrong. For them to have to do that tells me that potentially there's something wrong.

I'm just asking how we could, if we could, cooperate with yourself to recognize what those issues might be and how we could help correct them. That's all I'm suggesting.

The Chair: We have a question from Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: Just on that issue, Ms Jamieson, because I happen to support what Ms Fisher is saying, I understand what you're saying about what is of interest to you is what the complaint is as opposed to against whom, or where it's coming from, the origin of the complaint.

I like comparative data from year to year. I also like to have a sense of the number of complaints that come from different ministries, and if there's a perception that comes out of it, well, that's a perception we'll have to deal with. But it gives us an opportunity to deal with those statistics; it gives us an opportunity to ask those questions: What does it mean? What prevention is going on? Is there a pattern of complaint coming from a particular ministry? Is it occurring every year?

In establishing that pattern, we get a sense as a committee of what needs to be done. Then either yourself or even the ministry could say, "Well, this is what the problem is and this is how we're dealing with it." But it does give me a better sense of what's going on and it does give me an opportunity to ask more effective questions about what is going on. Because ultimately I want to get at prevention, not at an Ombudsman-driven kind of system where complaints keep on coming and you're there to keep on solving. I know you'll never self-destruct, because complaints will always be there; I understand that. But I am one who likes to get to prevention of problems -- patterns and then prevention. So how do we do that?

I support the idea of comparative data from ministry to ministry, because I think that's good. I wanted to make that statement. I'm not sure I said anything different that might change your answer, but do you have a comment?

1100

Ms Jamieson: Yes, I do have a comment. One of the things we are trying very hard to do is sketch out the patterns and the trend analysis. In last year's annual report we do some of that. We certainly will continue to do that, and that report will come forward to the Legislature and the committee.

We talk about delay in this particular last report. We talk about how ministries are dealing in an uneven way with new fiscal realities. So what we've tried to do is do the analysis of the trends as we see them as they come in the door and what they're saying to us, in an effort to raise with the Legislature where some of the areas are for improvement.

I agree with you on the prevention aspect certainly. Every time we get a complaint, I ask staff -- you know what a Rubik's cube is? Yes? I ask staff to take the complaint and look at it from all of the angles as though it's a Rubik's cube and kind of move it around and so on, so that when we're dealing with a particular complaint, we determine whether it's isolated or whether it represents a systemic issue. Is this happening in Timmins, North Bay, Windsor, Ottawa, Toronto? When we solve or resolve the complaint by convincing the ministry to do whatever, we make certain that we put into place mechanisms that will prevent it from happening again.

One good example that we often use of a case like this would be a 15-day notice requirement in government. Now a 15-day notice requirement for a member of the public to bring forward an application for government to reconsider something might make sense in itself where our transportation is good, our communication is good. It doesn't make sense in the north. It might be 15 days before you even get the letter, never mind 15 days to respond. There is a complaint, an issue, that potentially will affect all government.

When we look at each issue, we are making sure that we maximize the opportunity that gives us and put that together with the perspective the Ombudsman has to look all across government and to fix that. So I certainly agree with you that that is a focus that must be had.

Mr Marchese: Just to continue with that -- I had other questions, but I'll come around afterwards -- I appreciate the answer with respect to how you deal with systemic problems. That was part of my other question on how you deal with that. Perhaps when it comes around I'll continue with that again.

I appreciate much of what you're saying around how you deal with all of these questions, but it is our sense as a committee that we would like to have the comparative data and the graphs which show number of complaints brought against a particular governmental organization. This is the feeling of this committee and we're likely to recommend this. Is that something that you would be able to respond to affirmatively or not?

Ms Jamieson: I think with the caveats that I have provided, I'm certainly willing to share information with committee. There are some concerns I have about how, you know -- I don't want committee to draw the conclusions that I've reached, but I'll certainly take that into consideration and see how I can best respond to that request.

Mr Jean-Marc Lalonde (Prescott and Russell): I too support what MPPs Fisher and Marchese just mentioned. I always like to compare the data from year to year, but we have to keep in mind that at times the data are deferred, sometimes the numbers increase and sometimes they decrease, and there are reasons for that. Sometimes you get good information. It's because of better information, better communication, but it is also the fact that sometimes people have lost confidence.

Lately I've met the two reps from the Ombudsman at my office, and I brought to their attention -- well, really I've asked at least 10 different questions and I've yet to see at what point the Ombudsman has to be involved. I will have to meet with them at a later date because I don't know what their tasks are really at this point because of all the questions I've asked them. They said: "Well, no, it goes to municipal. No, it goes to a government department. It goes to federal."

But when I look at this report here that you referred to, at one point about school board referral, according to what I was told, you people are not supposed to get involved at that point and here you say that you spoke to the supervisor. You've made the phone call to the school board, but really it wasn't under your responsibility to make that phone call. You've made this. It is registered as one of the complaints.

But I really feel that the Ombudsman commission should come up with a report not identifying the complainant, but it's only at that time that we could see really that if government has to come up with some changes, because we also referred in there that the Ombudsman should not have jurisdiction to review cabinet decisions. So really I'm not clear yet on what the responsibilities of this commission are.

Ms Jamieson: Let me take the last point that you raise first. The Ombudsman does not now nor have we ever had the authority to review cabinet decisions. I think that's quite clear.

On the other question about school boards and jurisdiction, I cannot do a formal investigation into a complaint about a school board, as I said earlier, much like children's aid societies, municipal government and hospitals, unless it's a psychiatric facility. I can, however, look at complaints about the Ministry of Education and Training and how it responds to a complaint about the school board. Sometimes it's difficult to see. It's complex, this picture, and there are gaps for sure.

However, if we have a complaint in front of us and we know very well with a simple referral we can solve it, and we know there is no place for people to go, we often will do it. I will not do a formal investigation. We may make a phone call because we know exactly how to solve it and we'll do it as a public service and let that person know what is possible further down the road.

The other point that you raise about comparative data -- and it's been raised a few times. In fact, the statistical data that appears on pages 54, 55 and 56 of the last annual report does have comparative data for three years.

Mr Lalonde: Just the last point that I would like to bring up. Yes, I did have a visit with two members of your commission and they spent at least half a day without having a customer to come and see them. I think there's definitely a lack of communication. People don't know what their tasks are. I offered them my office in the future because they have to spend some of your funds really when they have to spend some time in the riding. I think the information has to be looked at. How do you inform the people of what the responsibility of the Ombudsman is?

Ms Jamieson: I certainly agree with that and would welcome any opportunity, suggestion, ideas. It's a constant challenge for us. We are out and about and do have intake clinics in public libraries, community centres. More than ever staff are going out to community as opposed to waiting for people to come and find us. I don't think you can say you're providing a public service if people don't know you exist, so we're spending a considerable amount of time. We've also tried to be quite strategic about it so that we use our resources well in accomplishing that.

1110

The other thing that I'm very pleased to hear about the close relationship with members is we do have people come to us about issues that we refer to members. We hear about political issues and we say to people, "I'm sorry, that's not us; you go and see your member," and you hear about issues that you often refer to us. I'm very pleased to see that develop.

There are some times we'll go into a community and we'll just raise awareness. The next time the district officer goes back to that community, there's a lineup at the door. So it really varies throughout the province as well.

The Chair: Okay, there've been a number of hands in the last few minutes, but if anyone's got a comment on that point, I want to hear you.

Mr Marchese: It was on public education, and you've touched on it, because part of the recommendation we have here is that the Ombudsman should report annually on public education activities undertaken, should include a statement of specific objectives, nature and number of activities undertaken and evaluation of effectiveness of programs in advancing those objectives.

I suppose we could come up with some suggestions at some point if we discuss this ourselves, as opposed to leaving that responsibility totally to your office. But it is a good statement here about how you do public education and measuring effectiveness, because I think it's important. I like the fact that you're saying you're going out to communities, as opposed to waiting, because normally a complaint-driven system is like that: You simply wait. The problem is that a lot of people simply don't know that you exist or what you do. Unless we tell them what you do, we have a problem.

But in the context of this, we have some communities in Ontario that are less informed than others, for a variety of reasons, and language is usually a problem. Literacy is also a problem. So the question for us becomes, how do we reach some of those communities more effectively, given the nature of language barriers and literacy barriers as well? So the fact that we may go some place sometimes doesn't mean those people we worry about get to that committee, because a lot of the people who have these problems tend not to go to these committees, to these meetings and so on.

So how do we reach them? Do we use the ethnic media at all? Do we use the larger media in some way to reach them? So these are the questions that I would ask in relation to public education. Are you thinking about those things?

Ms Jamieson: Yes, certainly. We do use the ethnic media. We do use press releases for the mainstream media when we are travelling to a community. We have actually divided the province into 10 areas. We've done an analysis of who is our public and what are our challenges in each area. We make it a commitment to be accessible to people. We provide materials in about 20 languages now and make a commitment to serve people in not only English and French, but every language they would like to speak, because we know Ontario is diversity. You can't, again, offer a public service if people can't speak to you. So we do that.

We also do materials in audio tape and we will receive them in audio tape. We also do materials in Braille. We also, when we visit communities -- and we have, in the last couple of years, made it certainly our business to go out to communities. To first nations communities, for example, we go with an interpreter. I myself have been up the James Bay coast. Our staff regularly go to remote communities. A lot of it is introducing to them for the first time that an Ombudsman exists.

You've really struck an area that I'm personally very strongly committed to. One other initiative I'll tell you about involves a special project we have going on right now with the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture. I'm very proud of this. If there is one group for whom it is difficult to understand that you can actually complain about a government, it's people who've come to this country from countries where torture is a reality, and torture administered by government officials. So knowing that was a particular challenge, we have worked with the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture and offer them an opportunity to come in and volunteer in our office and work with them to get the news out to their community.

We are more than ever visiting cultural centres, committing to a regularized schedule of taking complaints in cultural centres -- I believe the Native Canadian Centre here in the city, we go on a regular basis once every two months -- and that is more and more our approach. We know, for example, that some of the complaints we get about government service come from people who can't get service or assistance because they don't have an address. They may be homeless. So we know that's a particular challenge and we've tried to find ways to reach out to those people.

That is what I think public service is about, and it doesn't stop at five o'clock when we all look at our watch and leave. Staff work evenings at these sessions and weekends. I'm very proud of some of our initiatives in this area.

I'm acutely aware of the challenge and the degree of creativity that's needed to meet it. It's still a big challenge for us; no question in my mind.

The Chair: I don't want to cut off this line of inquiry, but I want to make sure everyone gets their chance. We'll get back to you.

Mr Marchese: Just an additional point. I appreciate the answers. I appreciate that the Ombudsman is doing a great job in this regard. A quick comment: the Chinese community, for example, watches Chinese television -- 80% of the Chinese community watches television in the cable program. I'm not sure how many of them read Chinese papers. I don't have that statistic in my hand --

Ms Jamieson: Me either.

Mr Marchese: -- but I know the Portuguese community watches the channel 47 program. I'm certain that they watch more of that television than they actually read the community newspapers. I say this because that's a better medium than written communication with people.

Ms Jamieson: I certainly appreciate that. One of the other things, just before I stop on this point as well, I've been particularly pleased to also do some cable TV with members who've taken it upon themselves to promote the office as well. Any way I can cooperate with members, whether it's in your yearly calendar or what have you, to get that information out, I'm only too willing to do.

Mr Bill Vankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington): I too want to welcome the ombudsperson here today because I really believe that the role that an ombudsman plays is very important in today's society.

Having said that, I have some very grave concerns as a politician and the fact that I believe as politicians we've delegated too much to many agencies and commissions and so on, as well as legislated certain functions away from politicians. Today I think we're almost irrelevant because not only are politicians becoming very frustrated, the people who put us here are very frustrated in that we have very little to say when someone comes to us with a complaint. What do we do? We do the best we can under the circumstances without any control or authority and we send them off to someone else that perhaps, depending on their opinion or their view, then we get into bureaucratic abuses of power where they may or may not look at things the same as a politician.

Politicians come and go; bureaucrats sometimes, whether it be 10 years or whether it be a full working career, are there and it's very difficult sometimes to get the thinking of people or the needs of various communities, their views, through the system that we've almost destroyed, I believe, because I don't think politicians today have the same role as they had 30, 40, 50 years ago. A politician at one time, when a person came to them with a complaint, they had some authority to go to a bureaucrat and say: "What's the problem here? Let's get this resolved one way or the other." Today that is very, very difficult, it is very frustrating, and I would like to see your role complement more what we as politicians are doing to serve the fairness and equity of the people who put us here.

I believe that sometimes we get overwhelmed with glossy reports. By no means am I criticizing, because I know there are reports much glossier and bigger and thicker, and they overwhelm politicians with absolutely nothing.

1120

I'm concerned about the cost of not only your office, but I'm concerned when you say we need an Ombudsman federally, we need an Ombudsman municipally. As you know, we have 850-some municipalities in Ontario. Where do you draw the line? Do we need one with a big bureaucracy in Toronto? Then do we need one for every municipality? Do we need one for every board of education? Where does this stop? We're overgoverned now. We have politicians coming out of our ears, and we need more bureaucrats?

I'm just concerned about the reporting process. You don't report to us as a committee; you go to the Legislature. You say, "First of all, I go to a minister, then I go to the Premier and then I go to the Legislature." Where are we as individuals? We don't seem to have the control or we don't seem to have the individual input that I think our constituents want.

I like to think of myself as a good constituency person, that when someone comes to me with a problem, I can get it resolved. I've tried to do that, but I'm being frustrated in that everything is being delegated, whether it be because of the Charter of Rights or because of various freedom of information and privacy acts. I am frustrated, as are most people I've talked to who, as newer politicians, come here with an idea that they're going to represent their people, and when they get here they don't have that control.

Do you see any way that we, as individual members of Parliament, can help you to do your job without increasing the bureaucracy and the cost; effectiveness in getting the fairness and equity back to individual people who may have complaints? I appreciate very much what you're doing individually, getting out to communities and talking to people. They've come to me and they feel very good that you're coming into communities, such as those in eastern Ontario, and that is very helpful.

But I hope you can appreciate that I, as a politician, am very frustrated at the continuation of the erosion of my authority. I know that as a legislative person I can do certain things, but I feel we've given too much to bureaucrats collectively and we have retained hardly anything.

At the same time, I want to say this change is because of what's happening in society in general, communications and so on. You've talked about, for example, people coming to Canada and Ontario who speak different languages. I believe this is a problem in itself. Are we basically an English-speaking country, or do we become a melting pot where we have just everybody coming in here and doing their own thing? Do we have everyone speaking English or whatever it may be? I don't know, but the fact is we're becoming so fragmented that we're just becoming irrelevant in terms of trying to govern this province or this country. We're not resolving the problems. It's getting worse instead of better.

I would like to know from you what we can do as individuals to try and serve the people who are actually paying for this. Would, for example, a report to this committee be helpful, or would you see problems with that, rather than it going first to the Legislature? When it goes to the Legislature, where does it go? It gets bogged down there somewhere. It gets tabled and that's it.

Ms Jamieson: You've raised quite a number of points. I'll try and respond to the ones where it's appropriate for me to respond.

I've heard what you said about the power shift. There's no question but that government has become, as I said in my opening remarks, much more involved in the daily lives of people over the last decades, and a lot of it has been through bureaucracy and regulation and so on. I think, as that's taken place, it is so important that there be a standard of fairness against which all these people and actions and activities can be judged. I think that puts the onus and responsibility squarely on me to make sure that happens.

You've asked how we can work best together. I think by having very good communication, a very good referral service between our offices when people come in the door. People, when they come to see me, and I'm sure when they come to see you, are frustrated. They have had it, they want an answer, and they don't want to wait forever for it. The sooner we can sort out for them what the solution is to their problem, the better, the more satisfied they'll be, and working effectively to help one another accomplish that.

Where it's a matter that members are best able to deal with, and members do every day, then certainly we refer there. Members themselves often bring me complaints on behalf of constituents or they refer the constituent. It's usually a judgement call they make on the fact that this complaint is one that requires investigation. That's where the Ombudsman has the authority and the power to do, and that's often the case.

Where else can we work together? I think by knowing that if government won't listen, there is going to be a committee that will be strongly supportive and willing to be non-partisan in bringing the public scrutiny on a government agency that will not cooperate. That's essential.

The third part is in some of the areas, the four issues I outlined at the beginning of my remarks, ensuring that as government service is realigned and redefined we don't lose the checks and balances on bureaucratic maladministration that need to be there, whether it's through privatization or whether it's through finding good, effective ways of making sure that people who deal with the children's aid society, for example -- I mean, we can read the papers. Some of the things that are happening that people might want to have an investigation into should be there. Does it mean 800 agencies? I don't think so. Does it have to be phenomenally expensive? I don't think so either.

At the moment, our office is there to serve the Ontario public for less than a dollar a person. That's not a lot of money. I think there could be a good, healthy discussion of how municipal actions could be looked at by an investigator without ballooning a bureaucracy.

I hope I've covered at least the high points of what you asked.

Mr Vankoughnet: Can I have a couple of small supplements? For example, when you mention the efficiency of only a dollar per person, that's fine, but --

Ms Jamieson: Less than.

Mr Vankoughnet: Less than. That's fine, but you may have 400 or 500 of these people running around, and that's not so cheap. I guess what I'm saying is that bureaucracy has a tendency -- not just you, but other agencies, boards and commissions, or special groups such as yours doing things. It becomes costly and there's overlap and duplication and so on, especially if you have municipal groups. So I question that.

The other thing I really wanted to ask was, do you treat a situation differently when an individual comes directly to you, or if I were to phone your office and say, "A constituent has a problem, and would you look into this"? Are they treated the same, or do you say, "Because a member of Parliament has phoned, I'd better get on this right away and make sure we get this resolved"?

1130

Ms Jamieson: We try and make sure that every complaint that comes in the door is dealt with fairly and equitably. The only time we will say, "Deal with something with urgency," is if the particular circumstances of the file demand it.

If an inmate from a correctional institution is complaining about being refused a temporary absence permit to attend a funeral of a family member on the weekend, and it's a Friday, we deal with that right away. If it's about someone who can't get their driver's licence renewed and they're starting a job next week and they're being told, "Wait three weeks," we might move more quickly on that. If it's someone who has a particular medical condition and is awaiting some attention from the Ministry of Health or a northern health travel grant issue, we will act on that.

But it's the circumstances, not the person bringing it, that commands the attention. I would certainly be roundly criticized for being unfair if I looked at who brought it as opposed to the circumstances of the person represented by the file.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Good morning to you. We're focusing on today's problems and maybe some that the committee perceived in the past, but I'd like to touch on one that you spoke about earlier that may affect the future, and that was privatization. You said you have a concern with non-profit and profit organizations now that, as an example, reflect on children. We'll call that a broad statement for now. Do you envision that employees who could be affected by privatization in the future would be left without any recourse, under the current structure of the Ombudsman's office?

Mr Jamieson: I'm sorry, the last part again, Mr Hoy?

Mr Hoy: Would employees be left with no source of recourse, under privatization, under the mandate of the Ombudsman's office as it is now?

Ms Jamieson: At the moment, we investigate complaints from employees of government agencies only if they don't have a right to grieve or after the grievance is exhausted. If services are privatized, my concern is that not only would we not be able to look at employee issues, but we wouldn't be able to look at complaints from the clients of these agencies, like the group homes, like the homes for young offenders, residential care and whatever else may be privatized.

I've raised this question because I think it is timely and I think it is quite serious when people would be losing the right to complain. Where would they go? I suppose they could sue, but we all know the courts are full, and who can afford it? And look at the backlog. I don't think that's an appropriate option. I am seriously concerned about that.

Mr Hoy: Thank you for helping me with that.

We were talking about financial matters earlier this morning, cost per case and duration of case. I have some limited experience in having people request that me of or an organization I was with. It's very difficult. How easy would it be for your staff to track the cost per case and duration of case? I simply leave it there.

Ms Jamieson: Not easy, you're absolutely right, because some cases are an hour and some cases are months. We do keep statistics on this, and they are in the report on page 52. We do know how long it takes on average to resolve cases -- 11 days -- and I'm very proud of staff achieving that record. We also know that 90% of the cases are dealt with in less than 72 days. Again, I'm very proud of that. I think that speaks very well of efficiency, but as I say, some cases involve one person, two phone calls, some involve a review of a file, some involve 100 people, some involve one district office, some involve a whole ministry. It really depends, and it's very hard. I would think it would be hard to calculate. I don't know if it's impossible, but it's not easy.

The Chair: Mr Doyle, your hand was up a while ago.

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Yes. Actually, part of the question has been answered because of previous questions, but you mention municipalities, school boards, hospitals, and I would assume the same thing, that you get complaints from the top now too, from federal, for example.

There must be an effort on your part, and I think you've alluded to this in any case, that you do make an effort to try and help these people out in any case, even though it may not be your jurisdiction, that you try to guide them or whatever. Do you know how much of your resources this takes for complaints that really are beyond your jurisdiction?

Ms Jamieson: I would say it's certainly not a huge part. I can't give you a percentage, but we find that if someone calls us and presents an issue to us -- staff are very good at referral -- to give them, and we now have it on computer, a name and a phone number at the end of the conversation really doesn't take a great deal of time and effort. I think it's better than saying to people: "You're in the wrong place. Goodbye."

Mr Doyle: We have the same thing in our offices, of course too, when it's a jurisdiction that isn't ours, so we try to guide them and direct them. You had mentioned the need for perhaps ombudsman-type systems in municipalities and so on and perhaps in the federal government and so on. I was just curious to see how much of a demand there was of you.

Ms Jamieson: Oh, there's a demand. On the municipal cases alone, 2,000 or 3,000 a year that we've counted. I have people coming up to me at public functions all the time and I don't count those who are asking me about municipal complaints. These days it's things like snow removal, garbage collection, Wheel-Trans, those sorts of things.

The Chair: I'm looking for hands.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I thought you saw my hand earlier. Thank you very much for coming forward and explaining the role of the office of the Ombudsman. I know you're aware of the large land mass that my riding takes in because you mentioned that you were up the James Bay coast, and my riding also takes in the Hudson Bay coast. I'm happy to hear you say that you've been up there and have an understanding of their concerns.

My riding is probably a little bit different from the member's across who asked the question, should English be the only language in Ontario? English is a minority in my riding. The aboriginal people make up a large percentage of the population, the francophone population is very proud of its culture and language and the English minority gets along very well and respects the other two cultures and languages that are up there.

A lot of the issues up the coast would be under federal jurisdiction, and I don't know if it's a question or not, but you might want to make a comment afterwards: Some of these people feel it's their right, that the federal government should allow them to have indoor plumbing and indoor toilets instead of having to use outdoor toilets and they shouldn't have to live 18 or 20 in a home, that these services should be given. I know we worked for the last five years on trying to work jointly with the federal government in helping out some of these severe conditions.

1140

We could probably put the equivalent of about 60 or 70 provincial MPPs into that land mass if you divide it up the way it is in land mass in southern Ontario. It's very difficult for a member, myself, Gilles Pouliot and a number of other ones, to service these areas, because to take a trip into one of these communities and spend a couple of days there, you're talking a charter flight which is somewhere around $7,000 or $8,000, the time that you need to help those.

I'm one of the people who is happy with any assistance I can get to help my constituents with some of their concerns and trying to get their conditions to what a lot of other people have taken for granted in other parts of the province, where you have snow removal that is easy to come by. I understand you're probably going to get a large number of complaints from northern Ontario as far as snow removal is concerned, because winter hasn't started yet; it only starts on December 21. I understand the winter budget has all been spent on southern Ontario for the whole winter, so I don't know where the money's going to come from to maintain the roads the way people expect.

I just want to leave it at that. I know you're aware of the situation that we have up in this part of the north, but I wasn't too sure if the members here had been or were aware of it. The situations are unique and we welcome any extra assistance we can get to serve the constituents there. So I just leave it at that. If you want to comment, I'd appreciate it.

Ms Jamieson: I probably should have said wachea then to you -- good morning -- which I believe is the expression in the communities on the coast.

The conditions in first nations communities, particularly in the north and particularly in remote locations, are a disgrace to this province and to this country -- no question in my mind. It continues to amaze, depress and challenge me as to why this is the case and why it's allowed to continue. When we go to these communities, it's particularly concerning to see these situations, the living conditions, the housing conditions, which we experience nowhere else, I think, in the province.

It's a particular challenge because, you're right, the federal government is involved, the provincial government is involved, the first nation itself is involved, and some of the issues there are very difficult to untangle when we are challenged with a complaint. We do our best and we do make a commitment to go into these communities, because the idea of them being able to access us, even in Timmins, just doesn't work in terms of real life.

We get complaints about everything, from the conditions I spoke of earlier: hydro, a big area of complaint; health services; access to services generally. While the federal government is very involved, you still get the provincial government dealing with birth certificates, drivers' licences, the whole gamut. You get a lot of issues on Ministry of Natural Resources matters, mines and development issues, land use permit issues. There is still a range of provincial matters that are quite properly within our area and we do our best to solve them.

But you raise an area that's a particular challenge and it's certainly one that we've worked very hard to make sure our staff are sensitive to, not only the conditions but the cultural differences -- the differences in making decisions, in even making a complaint.

There are many first nations communities where making a complaint is done in a storytelling fashion and so it's highly inappropriate to come in and sit down with my form and sort of say, "Okay, get to the point," and I've got to kind of condense it to three lines here. Often it will take an hour and a half and the complaint comes at the end of a story. During the story you are assessed for your trust -- are you listening to that person, do you care about their issue -- and then the trust is there at the end to disclose what the complaint is. We have done some training of our staff to make sure that when they go into first nation communities they have that sensitivity. We have interpreters with us so that we make sure we hear what the person wants to share with us.

These are some of the things we are doing, but I share with you my concern because it does continue, and we will do our best with the resources we have to make sure we continue to provide service to these communities.

Mr Galt: As you talked about going out to the community and taking your organization out to them and making sure they're aware of your services and that you are there, and it came up earlier, my concern is the overuse, the misuse, the frivolous and vexatious requests that come to your office. How in fact do you control this? You were using a lot of examples, from snow removal to an inmate wanting to get to a funeral, to some concerns over a driver's licence -- "We need it tomorrow" -- when they should have maybe been applying for it six months ago and had all kinds of time. That does not strike me as the type of thing that should be going to your office. I guess I see tribunals and a lot of other organizations that are out there that I would have thought would have doing some of these things. Is it unlimited, or how do you screen out some of these maybe unnecessary requests?

Ms Jamieson: I would say first of all that there is a fundamental difference between the kind of 500-plus agencies, boards, commissions, tribunals that are out there and our office. The Ombudsman is an officer of the Legislature and it's the only independent unit that can investigate the actions of government with the powers it has, including the actions of all these 500 agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals. There's a fundamental difference between ministries, boards and the Ombudsman. How do we sort out which ones are deserving and which ones are not and which ones are vexatious and frivolous? Very few, frankly, on their face are vexatious and frivolous, and those are the only ones I'm entitled to turn away. I can't turn away complaints.

Having said that, as we begin to have a look at something, if it strikes me that the person's expectation of what we can accomplish is unrealistic or what they're asking for is unreasonable or if they've been dealt with quite fairly, I will discontinue an investigation; I will not keep going after that. There are some people, however -- you used the driver's licence example -- who come in and expect service from an agency of government to be of a high quality -- why does it take three weeks, six weeks, three months to do something as simple as reissuing a form? -- and find that very difficult to accept, and often I find that very difficult to accept and I think I'm obliged to raise that question.

Many of the other issues that come to us involve people who've had their social assistance denied or reduced, injured workers who have been turned down for disability benefits and will require a much more lengthy review into their file, a look at the Workers' Compensation Appeals Tribunal decision, and involve much more work. So it really depends on the nature of the issue, but I can tell you that very few on their face are vexatious and frivolous, and people feel very strongly about every one, partly because they may have been to six offices before they got to us.

1150

Mr Froese: First of all, with some of the questions-I can appreciate your sitting there and hearing a lot of the statements that were made -- in my opinion they were political statements and not really questions, and I appreciate your trying to read through some of that stuff and answer the questions with the direct response as to how the Ombudsman's office operates with respect to some of the complaints you receive. I appreciate that.

I'd like to get specific answers to questions. As you know, this committee made a report to the Legislature, to the Speaker, in April 1993. I would specifically like to get your comments on the recommendations on page 148 and on. I'm sure you received the report. I know it's some time ago. As we all know, nothing has been done with looking at those recommendations, but I'd specifically like to know your comments on such things as the recommendations that were made to the Legislature with respect to the scope of the Ombudsman's mandate, the process of the Ombudsman's operation and the relationship with respect to the Legislature and this committee, by the committee of the day at that time.

Ms Jamieson: It has been some time ago, you're quite right, Mr Froese, and I did not at the time make a report or a comment on the content of the recommendations that were contained in that report. I'm very happy to discuss individual issues that are in the report, either today or on another occasion if you would like to do so. I'm in the Chair's hands. I'm looking at the clock. How would you like to do that?

The Chair: I was just noticing that myself. If you had a general comment, maybe that would be appropriate. If we're going to get into specifics, maybe we would put that over to another day.

Ms Jamieson: I really don't have a general comment that I think would be useful to share now. If we get into some of the issues that members wanted to raise or some of the recommendations members were considering, if there are some from the report, I'd be happy to respond at that stage. I did not respond at the time and we'd have to think about what was the context then, what's the context now, what's the goal we're trying to achieve in working together.

Mr Froese: I know you generalized the comment, but one question that might be asked and it's probably in the recommendation -- it may or may not be; I don't know specifically -- but how would you feel about a change in the act where your office or the report would come to the Ombudsman standing committee?

Ms Jamieson: Do you want to do specifics now then? I'm happy to do it.

The Chair: I've got five to 12, quite happily, which is probably more time than we have on the wall, and I want to reserve three minutes for this committee to discuss its own housekeeping, so with that in mind, two minutes for some discussion, I guess, and then we should wrap this up.

Ms Jamieson: It's a big question and I'll try to give a two-minute answer. I have serious concerns about that because that would fundamentally change the mandate that the Ombudsman Act gives the Ombudsman. I talked earlier about the need for independence. I can tell you that everywhere I go in this province I am asked: "Well, how is it that you're independent? Where do you get your funding? Whom do you report to?" I explain this no less than three times a week, probably a lot more when I'm on the road, every place I go.

The public I deal with want to be sure that I am an independent officer, as I say I am, of the Legislature. I think that if you get into creating the relationship between a committee of the Legislature and the officer that's like a board of directors and an employee, you fundamentally change the role. If the public feels that I have a committee, particularly with a majority of government members, each day telling me what to do, how to do investigations, how to handle budget, they're not going to believe that I can truly, objectively investigate government. The credibility on which I rely will be gone.

I feel very strongly about that, only because it changes fundamentally the whole task that was given to the Ombudsman and, frankly, that the ombudsman has all around the world. It's a very different concept.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I think we should bring this discussion to a close at this point. Ms Jamieson, I want to express my appreciation, and on behalf of the committee the committee's appreciation to you for joining us today and sharing so forthrightly in the discussion we've had. I look forward to continuing this discussion in future.

Ms Jamieson: Thank you so much. Nyawah.

The Chair: In just a minute or so, I'd like to discuss with the committee where we go from here. I have a suggestion but I'm interested in hearing from you.

Mr Froese: Let's hear your suggestion.

The Chair: My suggestion is that the subcommittee meet and form a view and that we then meet again at the call of the Chair, having first met with the subcommittee. In the absence of any discussion on that, I will take it as a given that that's what we will do.

Mr Marchese: Could I ask you, Mr Chair, I suspect we may not have to meet in the intersession, but if we do, that's a request we have to make of the House leaders. That should happen before the House folds. So is it your sense that's something we should talk about before we disband this group? Maybe we should discuss it at the committee.

The Chair: The second part of my comment that I didn't put explicitly on the record is that the subcommittee should meet pretty darn soon, maybe as soon as we break this morning.

Mr Marchese: Maybe we should discuss this with the committee while it's still here.

The Chair: I'm happy to do that.

Mr Marchese: Otherwise, if the subcommittee meets, we're not meeting again. The House will break tomorrow. So we should discuss whether or not there's a need for us as a committee to meet during the intersession.

The Chair: I'm happy to do that.

Mr Froese: My understanding is that you would meet with the subcommittee and that the motion you suggested was that it would meet at the call of the Chair. I would assume, if you don't call a meeting, then we're not sitting.

Mr Marchese: No, Tom, the way it works is that if you don't get time, if the House leaders don't agree for this committee to meet during the intersession, it doesn't matter that the subcommittee or the Chair says we're going to meet.

Mr Froese: I know, but that's the Chair's responsibility with the subcommittee. We can discuss if we want to meet during the --

Mr Marchese: That's the point. If there is a need for us to talk about some issue or other, then we need to get approval from the House leaders for us to meet. Whether or not we need one day or two days or two meetings for discussion is something we should be chatting about? Otherwise we're holding this discussion off until reconvene.

My sense is that we should build continuity into our discussions and not wait until we reconvene and we begin this discussion. I'm not sure how many days we might need for that discussion, but we should continue with this and build. How many days, I'm not sure. Does anybody have a sense of that?

Mr Froese: I certainly would agree with that, that we should meet during the recess of the House. We're not going to wait two and a half months to discuss this issue again. My recommendation is that if you met with the subcommittee, as Chair, I assumed it was a natural that you would go to the House leaders, or whatever the procedure is, to ensure that we're allowed to meet, or to inform them that we're meeting during the recess.

The Chair: Let's start just by sounding that out. Is there a general wish that this committee meet during the intersession?

Interjections: Yes.

The Chair: Let's allow the subcommittee to be guided by that indication and we'll do our best to put something together.

Mr Marchese: But I think the committee needs to make the motion, not the subcommittee. We won't be able to meet again, right?

Mrs Fisher: You have to bring a report forward from subcommittee to committee to even get to there. His point is very right. We have one day.

The Chair: How about the committee authorize the subcommittee to --

Mrs Fisher: Strike the dates.

The Chair: Strike the dates, exactly.

Mrs Fisher: With consultation.

Mr Marchese: You're thinking the subcommittee can meet now, or when? Tomorrow's the last day, Mr Chair.

The Chair: Let's meet right away, see how much we can do now --

Mr Marchese: We're pretty well ready to make some suggestions. Perhaps a week might do it, to be able to talk about things that we need to talk about as a committee. I'm not sure we need more than that. Do people agree?

Mrs Fisher: A full week?

Mr Marchese: Yes. We could spread it out. We could spread the days out. We don't have to meet four days in one week. I'm not sure how the House leaders would deal with that kind of request, but what we would like is a week's time to be able to do our work and it may be that we spread that out over a two-week period.

Mr Hoy: If required.

The Chair: What I'm getting out of this is that there's a general wish that we convene, there's a recognition that it's going to be the House leaders who decide when and whether we can meet.

Mr Marchese: True, but it's important for us to make the request for a week or two, and so on, and then they have to deal with that, but if the committee doesn't bring that recommendation and we leave it to them, we won't meet.

The Chair: Okay. Let's deal with what we can deal with right now. How long would people like to get together for? Two weeks?

Mr Hoy: I would think a week would be a lot.

Mrs Fisher: I would recommend up to a week so that we can adjourn earlier if we are done earlier. I think there are some pretty clear things we could talk about. It's not hard to fill an agenda. if this is the right way to do it, I would recommend that we request permission to meet for up to one week, dates to be set by the Chair upon consultation with members.

The Chair: In all practicality, in consultation with the House leaders.

Mr Marchese: Possibly, or probably.

The Chair: How does that sit with people?

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): If you're talking about up to a week, do you mean up to five days? Because we may not sit in a week, period. So are you talking about up to five days?

Mr Marchese: It's usually four days unless you specifically say that it's five.

Mrs Fisher: That should be enough, up to four days.

Mr Marchese: I would just say a week.

Mrs Fisher: It doesn't matter. No problem.

The Chair: On the understanding that it may not be continuous. We may grab a day here and there for a total of a week, whatever a week is.

Mrs Fisher: We can hope that it's not continuous.

The Chair: Does anyone want to put that in the form of a formal motion and we'll get that on the record.

Mrs Fisher: I move that we request the House leaders' permission, to be taken to the House, to meet for up to one week during our intersession.

Mr Marchese: I'm not sure about dates, how we state that, to be determined -- whether the House leaders allow us to stagger the days in the event that's what we need.

Mr Hoy: Not necessarily consecutive.

The Chair: Dealing in terms of the formal motion --

Mrs Fisher: To finish my motion, not necessarily with consecutive dates.

The Chair: Is everyone happy with the motion as it's expressed? Any discussion on that? The call would come from the Chair?

Mrs Fisher: At the call of the Chair. Dates to be set by the Chair.

The Chair: Any discussion on that?

Mr Marchese: No, that's fine. In consultation with the subcommittee, obviously.

Mrs Fisher: In consultation with the membership.

The Chair: I think that's a given but I'm happy for that to be in there.

All in favour? Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1205.