REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
CONTENTS
Wednesday 5 February 1997
Review of the Office of the Ombudsman
Mr Daniel Jacoby
Mr Gordon McGlone
Mr Jack Stapleton
Mr Christos Kourtsidis
STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN
Chair / Président: Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr CarlDeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
*Mrs BarbaraFisher (Bruce PC)
*Mr TomFroese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
*Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)
*Mr LeoJordan (Lanark-Renfrew PC)
Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)
Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)
*Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)
*Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)
*Mr John L. Parker (York East / -Est PC)
*Mr RichardPatten (Ottawa Centre / -Centre L)
*Mr R. GaryStewart (Peterborough PC)
*Mr BillVankoughnet (Frontenac-Addington PC)
*Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall L) for Mr Lalonde
Clerkpro tem /
Greffier par intérim: Mr Todd Decker
Staff / Personnel: Mr Philip Kaye, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1008 in committee room 2.
REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
The Chair (Mr John Parker): Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this morning's proceedings on the standing committee of the Ombudsman, and welcome to Mr Cleary, who joins us today.
DANIEL JACOBY
The Chair: Our first deputant this morning is Mr Daniel Jacoby, the Quebec public protector. Welcome to Toronto, Mr Jacoby. You have half an hour to make a presentation to this committee. You can use that time as you wish. Any time that is not spent in your presentation will be available to the members for questions and discussion. If there is time for questions, we will begin today with the third party. The floor is yours.
Mr Daniel Jacoby: Thank you. I will introduce myself. I've been the Quebec Ombudsman for nine years now, I'm at the end of my second term, so I've had to deal with many legislators. At the same time I'm the executive secretary of the International Ombudsman Institute, which regroups 86 countries and more than 140 ombudsmen in the world.
My task this morning is quite delicate for two reasons: I have to express the concerns of my Canadian colleagues regarding some proposals which are set out in the papers; and you will have to excuse my English at the same time, because it's not my mother tongue.
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): You are doing fine.
Mr Jacoby: At the beginning it seems to be fine.
You'll probably remember that last November my Canadian colleagues, the provincial ombudsmen, expressed their concerns regarding some of the proposals that could be interpreted as or constitute a narrowing of the independence or autonomy of the Ombudsman in Ontario. It is a major concern for the Ombudsman community and at the same time for laypeople. I have to tell you that I attended the last international conference of ombudsmen in Buenos Aires last November, and the ombudsman community saw problems in some Latin-American countries between the ombudsmen and the government. In the final declaration they stated that independence is one of the major characteristics of this post.
I'm happy to have the opportunity to express my views and give you my comments. But at the same time, in your 1993 report and 1996 report, generally speaking I would say that the concept of independence and the concept of partnership between your standing committee and the Ombudsman seem to be two important tenets, two important principles. I remind you that the documents say that the Ombudsman and the committee share a common purpose: to provide people in Ontario with the most effective Ombudsman service possible. The committee wrote that you believe that the committee can design ways to strengthen the partnership between the Office of the Ombudsman and the parliamentarians themselves. I think it's a good direction which has been taken by the committee either in 1993 or last year.
The situation in Ontario is not exceptional. If I compare my situation with the Ontario Ombudsman, I have no standing committee in Quebec. It's not provided for by the statute. But two or three months after being appointed nine years ago I discovered that I had to speak to parliamentarians because I needed support. So the National Assembly modified its bylaw, and now I have a kind of standing committee to which I report my annual report and specific reports and some conclusions of investigations.
I would say that around the world about 50% of the ombudsmen can officially report to a legislative committee. A survey was made in about 48 countries around the world in 1991. I would say that most of the answers given by the ombudsmen are that they need the support of a legislative committee. I think only two or three said that the relationship between the office and the committee was less satisfactory. But I believe it's important for the Ombudsman to have a legislative committee for many reasons.
First, I believe that the committee is a good channel to communicate with the House because the Ombudsman reports to the whole House, to all the members, and this is a way to communicate with the parliamentarians. But I believe that one of the major problems with which an Ombudsman's office deals is that he has a moral authority. I believe that moral authority has to be maintained. I know that in some countries people ask for coercive authority, binding decisions, but I believe that the role of an Ombudsman is to try to convince the administration to review its own decisions where decisions are unfair or something like that. I think that the Ombudsman has no binding power but has at the same time moral authority.
If the office wants to be efficient and effective it needs support not only of the complainant -- in many cases he has no support from the complainant. In my jurisdiction, when I investigate, statistics show that in only one case out of three the complaints are substantiated, justified. It means that in two out of three complaints I or my colleagues have to explain to people why they were not victims of unfairness. It's quite difficult, so we don't get support from the public when we don't accept the substance of a complaint after an investigation.
We, as Ombudsman, do not necessarily have the support of the media when we make public comments, because the media are what they are. Freedom of press is important but at the same time they can't be in accord with what you say, whether you are the Ombudsman or not, and you know that because you are parliamentarians.
We don't get support, generally speaking, from the head of agencies or deputies. We have broad support, but many deputies, many heads of agencies tell me when I have lunch with them, "We wish that your post were abolished." I know them but that's what they think regularly because we are disturbing them as the auditor disturbs them, as parliamentarians disturb the administration and everything.
We don't have full support. We have a moral authority. I believe it is important for an Ombudsman to get support at least from the elected representative of people to whom the Ombudsman has to report. It is important because otherwise the moral authority, which is only a moral authority, won't lead to any success even though a recommendation is satisfying for any political party if the standing or select committee does not regularly support the Ombudsman. It would mean that the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ombudsman could be altered in a major way. So the Ombudsman needs support, and not only the Ombudsman himself but people working for the Ombudsman. To me it is important to recognize that there should be a strong partnership between parliamentarians and the Office of the Ombudsman.
It doesn't mean that the Ombudsman should not be accountable to the Legislature. I believe that independence is very important, but at the same time accountability is very important because the Ombudsman is elected or appointed by the government and paid by the taxpayers and he has to be accountable to the Parliament or authority to which he reports. Accountability means he sometimes has to accept remarks regarding the investigation of the way he performs or the way he conducts his investigation. I can tell you that in my jurisdiction I meet my committee perhaps three or four times a year, and it happens every time, from both sides of the House, that some of the parliamentarians tell me they don't agree with the fact that I've made an investigation in a specific field or they don't agree sometimes with the fact that I make public comments, but we have good discussions. We don't agree on everything, but I would say that, mainly speaking, there is a consensus around the table of the necessity to maintain the partnership between the Ombudsman and parliamentarians.
1020
Independence is very important, and it's not an absolute principle. There is no definition of independence, but what we know and you know is that if the Ombudsman is not or does not seem to be independent he will have no credibility, but at the same time the House won't get credibility. Independence is a tool for the Ombudsman to be credible and to be efficient and to report adequately and accurately to the House.
Some of your proposals which are set out in the 1993 or 1996 paper led my provincial colleagues and the international institute to some concerns about the interpretation of some proposals. I will deal with specific proposals. I have tabled my document; it could be scholarly or whatever, but I will deal with some of the proposals.
First I will deal with the authority of the Ombudsman to make or not to make public comments. I believe it's quite delicate for an Ombudsman to make public comments, especially during the course of an investigation, or sometimes to try to get the help or the support of the media to implement a recommendation. It's quite delicate. In Quebec I would say that my statute gives me very wide powers of commenting. I know the situation here is quite different from Quebec. Here, if a denied case, where the government doesn't implement a recommendation, is examined by your committee, you act in a way like a court of appeal. I think that's a very strong tool, even though the committee doesn't give support to the Ombudsman for each denied recommendation. In Quebec we don't have that, so I have the power to comment publicly if an agency refuses to implement my recommendation with no explanation.
In Ontario the proposals in the 1993 document say the Ombudsman should have authority to make public comment except to try to have a recommendation implemented. I think it's a good exception because of the system here with the Legislative committee. But in the 1996 document there is restriction, compared to the proposal made in 1993. The Ombudsman cannot make public comment except if he tables a report, a specific report, I believe, to the committee.
There are very practical problems, I would say. In many cases, it could be in the public interest for people to know that the Ombudsman is investigating such-and-such dossiers. In these times when everything is changing, in Ontario, in Quebec and everywhere around the world, people have to be assured. People have a lot of fears regarding the decisions made by governments, budget restraints, cuts here and there, so if the Ombudsman -- and that's what happened in my jurisdiction -- has the possibility of saying yes, there is a problem with the administration of such-and-such a program -- because the main problems are in the administration of programs, not in the conception of programs -- people will be satisfied that someone is investigating the application of a program. I think that is very important.
If the Ombudsman has to table a report -- I know parliamentarians are very busy and it's not easy to have hearings regularly. Therefore, from a practical point of view, I believe this could be a burden for the Office of the Ombudsman, to table a report before making public comments.
The second point is regarding the ombudsplan. I've noticed in the two papers, 1993 and 1996, that the Ombudsman has to discuss his plan for the forthcoming year. I have no problem with that. I believe it's part of the accountability of the Ombudsman to discuss with the members of Parliament the projects for the next year. But at the same time, I think the Ombudsman cannot bind himself with his plan. The Ombudsman is not the master of the agenda of the administration, and even though the Ombudsman one year says, "Next year I will make a systemic investigation in such and such a field," priorities and circumstances could be changed because there are huge problems in another sector of the administration.
I believe it is necessary for the Ombudsman to report on his intentions for the coming year, but I believe that plan should not be binding because, with the lack of resources now, the Ombudsman needs to be flexible and able to modify the priorities during the next forthcoming year.
If it's not binding, it doesn't have to be approved, but it has to be discussed, as I do regularly with my committee in Quebec. Parliamentarians ask questions. Sometimes they don't agree that I intend to do this or that, but I give an explanation and my explanation, generally speaking, satisfies the parliamentarians.
The other topic I want to deal with is about the method of appointment. I haven't got a very specific comment about that, but there are two other major issues: the conducting of investigations and the estimates.
Most of the provincial statutes which govern ombudspeople provide that the Legislature or the committee may adopt rules for the guidance of the Ombudsman, but in fact, even though we find those provisions in the statutes, to my knowledge they have never been used. They have never been used regarding the way to conduct investigations, and they have never been used to impose any specific order on the Ombudsman. I know that in the documents there is not a formal proposal regarding the adoption of such rules, but there are concerns by the committee regarding systemic complaints and regarding investigations in the field of administrative tribunals.
1030
I want to tell you, if the committee adopts rules regarding the way in which investigations should be made, I believe the Ombudsman will lose his independence, of course, but practically speaking, he will be perceived by the population and by the government officials themselves as being an employee of the Legislature, which in fact creates the risk of altering his efficiency and effectiveness.
I believe the Ombudsman should keep his autonomy on what to investigate and the way he investigates. If he does something wrong, not acceptable, he will for sure be criticized by some member of the committee and he could be criticized by the complainant himself and by the media.
I think the Legislature should put some confidence in the way the Ombudsman conducts his investigation, whether a specific individual complaint or a collective investigation.
I have a concern about this and about the decisions made by administrative tribunals. In my jurisdiction I don't have the authority to investigate the decisions made by administrative tribunals. It's expressly excluded. But in most provinces, like here, the ombudsperson has this authority. I think it's a very delicate power given to the Ombudsman. The tribunals themselves -- not necessarily the judicial tribunals, the court, but administrative tribunals -- should in a way be independent; otherwise, they don't have any credibility. So it's quite delicate for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints regarding a decision made by an administrative tribunal.
But I've noticed the way the Ontario Ombudsman's office deals with those cases from the beginning. I think the office respects that quasi-independence of administrative tribunals. He doesn't ask the tribunal to make another decision. He interferes only when the tribunal has the power to review its own decision and then invites, finally, the tribunal to review its decision. But the Ombudsman does not replace or is not a substitution for the tribunals.
Finally, I will end with the estimates. I'm going to tell you something about estimates. I am the only Ombudsman in Canada who negotiates his budget with the treasury board. It's paradoxical, in a way. I've asked in many reports to change the rules, and for reasons I'm unaware of, the rule is not changed.
But I tell you something: I have to discuss with the chair of the treasury board and his deputy. It's never been a problem, I would say. It depends on people sometimes; it depends on the philosophy of the chair of the treasury board regarding protection of human rights and the role of the Ombudsman, but generally speaking, I would say, I never had any problem.
I remember that five years ago I was asked to cut my budget 12% and to reduce my staff, so I said: "It's going to make a problem but I will change the way I conduct my investigation. I will make more systemic investigations in order to save energy." But at the time, the former government told me, "Now we'll leave you alone for many years." There has been a new government a few years ago and the new government had the same attitude towards me regarding my budget, so it's paradoxical, but personally I didn't have a real problem with discussing my estimates and my budget with the treasury board.
In Canada, generally speaking, the estimates are examined and approved by a committee. Here in Ontario, it's the Board of Internal Economy which discusses and approves the estimates of the Ombudsman and the estimates of other offices of the Legislature. I don't know if there is any problem sustaining the proposal made in the report to have the estimates of the Ombudsman discussed, examined and approved by this committee. I believe there must be reasons but I couldn't, reading the report and the rationale, understand why. So the question is, is it necessary to transfer the authority of discussing and approving the budget from the Board of Internal Economy to the standing committee? I don't know.
At the same time, I would say that if you do so, at the present time I believe that all the offices are treated fairly and equally by the Board of Internal Economy and I believe it's a good thing. I don't know of any office of the Legislature having its estimates approved by another committee of the Legislature, but I really don't understand the rationale and I'm not sure it could help the Ombudsman necessarily to have his budget approved by the standing committee.
I am finished my remarks. If you have any questions, I will be pleased to answer.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr Jacoby. Your timing was spot on. You've effectively consumed the half-hour available to you, so we'll leave it at that. Thank you very much for your submissions this morning; they've been very helpful.
Mr Jacoby: Thank you.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): May we ask one question? What is his budget?
The Chair: We're keeping everything to strict half-hour limits. If you want to have a private conversation, that's fine, but for the purposes of our proceedings we're keeping it to the strict half-hour.
Interjection.
The Chair: If that's acceptable to everyone, that seems like a question everyone would like an answer to, so certainly.
Mr O'Toole: Just one question: What is your annual last budget?
Mr Jacoby: It's $5 million, and my staff 80%, but I have only two offices. The head office is in Sainte-Foy, near Quebec City, and I have a small office in Montreal. There is a big difference between my budget and the budget of the Ontario Ombudsman.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much.
The Chair: To members of the committee, as I mentioned, our second scheduled deponent today is not here but I understand that our third scheduled deponent has arrived. I propose that we go straight to him as soon as he's available. He's not in the room at the moment. The clerk tells me that our third deponent is visiting elsewhere in the building at the moment. Do we know when he's likely to be available here?
He will be here imminently, I'm told, so we'll take a short recess.
The committee recessed from 1040 to 1051.
GORDON MCGLONE
The Chair: We will reconvene. We are now joined by Mr Gordon McGlone. Mr McGlone, welcome to our proceedings this morning. You will have half an hour to make a presentation to this committee. You can use that time pretty much as you wish. Any time left over after you've made your presentation will be available to the committee members to ask questions or follow up on any points you've raised. The floor is yours.
Mr Gordon McGlone: I am pleased to be here this morning to greet the committee. I'd like to read out a statement I have. I provided you with a handout of what I'll be saying, and also some background history of my past dealings with the Ombudsman office, past dealings with the Ontario Human Rights Commission and past dealings with the Social Assistance Review Board. These are all avenues of appeal. The Human Rights Commission denied my human rights case, stating under section 34 that either the Ombudsman or the Social Assistance Review Board could more effectively deal with it. My case has still not been dealt with and it's been close to five years now.
I am pleased to be able to speak to the standing committee on the Ombudsman of Ontario. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and others with traumatic brain injuries.
I was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1988 and substantially injured further in accidents in 1992 and 1993. My rehabilitation was initially through friends while I waited for my name to come up on the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services lists.
Unfortunately, the Ministry of Community and Social Services did not respond to my needs appropriately so I was obliged to seek the help of the Social Assistance Review Board in hearings in 1993 to the present. In spite of an initial positive ruling, the director of vocational rehabilitation services refused to help and appealed the decision of the board. After a year of waiting for this appeal to be heard, VRS agreed to proceed with the decision of SARB and my rehabilitation program as outlined by my doctors. The VRS then bogged down further progress with continued red tape and delayed implementation of my program.
In despair, I filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission. In 1995, the Ontario Human Rights Commission responded to my complaint, refusing to hear my case under section 34, stating that another division of government could better deal with my complaint.
I appealed to the Ombudsman of Ontario with the assistance of former MPP Zanana Akande. The Office of the Ombudsman refused to hear my case because they said there was another avenue of appeal still available.
Since then I've gone through another SARB hearing to no avail. The Ministry of Health has provided funding for my rehabilitation with various obstructions and catch-22 situations leaving me vulnerable and with little rehabilitation assistance. The VRS has stalled repeatedly in providing the help I need.
I am left without help, and the Ombudsman, who is supposed to be the last court of appeal, has refused to assist me because of the definition of its mandate. I would request that the terms of reference of the Office of the Ombudsman be broadened to provide better access for people with traumatic brain injuries and the multicomplex disabilities associated with this area of rehabilitation.
That's my brief, and I'm willing to entertain questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have about 25 minutes available to the members, beginning with Mr Wood.
Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): First of all, thank you very much for coming forward and making your presentation and explaining your situation.
You're saying you'd like to see the terms of reference broadened further. Maybe we can get more detail on how far you think they should be broadened for the Ombudsman.
Mr McGlone: What I would like to see through the Ombudsman's office -- and with individuals such as myself who are suffering traumatic brain injuries and have disabilities, as a result of a disability and depending on the magnitude of your disabilities too, certain things have happened to me where I am now banned from coming into a place like this. I have to have an appointment to come in here, with a letter. I'm banned from the VRS offices. I'm banned from the social services office. I am not able to contact my workers.
I feel that the Ombudsman, even though there is a course of appeal -- I won my decision at SARB. VRS has decided not to deal with it. They're saying they didn't like that decision because they lost it and so they delayed it for another year.
In that delay, I just sat without any help whatsoever. They're going to appeal it. There's always an appeal available for the government. They have lots of money and they have lots of expertise and they have lots of the people who are working behind them to do it.
I'm on my own. It's very difficult for me. I've since then been able to graduate from university and I have still not gone back to a job yet. I want to integrate back into the workforce, but with all the catch-22s and the red tape, I am not able to get back into the workforce and I don't understand why this is such a hard thing.
I want the Ombudsman to come in and be sort of like a mediator to this because this is a problem that's ongoing. The Ombudsman's office is not going to deal with it, and they're the last court of appeal. I could go to Divisional Court, as they say at SARB too, but I don't have the money to take the government to Divisional Court.
So I would like to see it where Steven Drawbell, whom I talked with at the Ombudsman's office, and Jill Clark before that, before she went to South Africa, that we somehow be able to come and talk about it and get the decisions of SARB implemented and stop the Human Rights Commission from letting everything off on a section 34. I've watched the number of cases skyrocket under section 34 claims.
The Chair: I now look to the government caucus.
Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Richard, for your presentation.
Mr McGlone: Gordon.
Mr O'Toole: Gordon. Pardon me. Just a quick question. You mentioned just now that you are banned from various public offices or contact with people. Under what condition? Is this part of your health condition or is it just because of your frustration? Are these court orders?
Mr McGlone: Yes. They're from the police, the constabulary here, and the Speaker, who issued a warrant stating that I'm not allowed here. I've further gone to make an appointment with the Speaker, Mr Stockwell, today and hopefully I'm going to try to talk with him. I've done a lot of maturing over a couple of years. I do suffer from the effects of brain injury. Some of the complexities that I have with brain injury are that when I'm having to do all this stuff on my own, I get agitated, I get confused, I get disoriented, I become loud, belligerent and very difficult to deal with. This is the part of the disability that I have.
1100
Mr O'Toole: That's what I wanted to clarify. You claim that it's part of your overall medical condition that causes this situation and you're just frustrated with the process.
Mr McGlone: I'm very frustrated with the process. As I've put in my brief too, a substantial amount of money is put on the table by the Ministry of Health that I was able to receive from the former government and with all the catch-22s and the red tape they have there, I cannot touch any of it.
Right now, I'm driving in every day from Kitchener for my rehabilitation. This is up to a two-hour commute during rush hour. This morning for me to come in here, it took two and a half hours to get here. The government -- how insane it is -- is paying for my costs of travelling to and from Kitchener at a lousy 27 cents a kilometre. When you look it up on the CAA guide, I should really be getting roughly 48 cents a kilometre for the wear and tear and what's happening to my car. They pay another $193 a month for my parking. Then by the time I do get here, I'm so tired out that I end up just sitting around and nothing gets accomplished.
Mr O'Toole: Let me just kind of back up here. You did win your SARB appeal and so you're on the social assistance program.
Mr McGlone: I'm on disability.
Mr O'Toole: A monthly disability. Are you on a Canada disability as well?
Mr McGlone: Yes, I am. Unfortunately, I was forced into the Canada disability pension from the former government.
Mr O'Toole: What's your total overall monthly income on both plans?
Mr McGlone: It's $934.
Mr O'Toole: Total per month. Is that taxable?
Mr McGlone: No tax. No, the CPP is taxable.
Mr O'Toole: Okay. Do you get --
Mr McGlone: But I get to write that back off again.
Mr O'Toole: Your vocational rehabilitation service is all in Toronto?
Mr McGlone: Yes. What I was doing at SARB was arguing with the vocational rehabilitation services. They will not give me the services I need. I thought vocational rehabilitation services were to get you back into the workforce. When I was in university, I was saying: "How about a co-op thing? How about getting me into the workforce? How about letting me work with the government? Let me work for some other organizations. I realize I have some problems."
I came and talked at the standing committee on Bill 79. I gave some incentives back then. Maybe we can give a tax break to some companies that are willing to hire people with disabilities. When I do have an opportunity to get somewhere, they slam the door in my face.
Mr O'Toole: I'm a little off topic here because we're really dealing with the role of the Ombudsman and not your specific case.
Mr McGlone: I didn't want to deal with my specific case. What I wanted to do is bring this out under recommendation-denied cases. I don't understand how the Ombudsman can just say: "There's another avenue of appeal for you. You can go to Divisional Court." That is not acceptable, I don't think. I'm an Ontario citizen and I want some service from this government and the government is just disallowing me and it has made it very difficult for me. My hands are tied and I want the Ombudsman to untie them.
Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): It says here in the letter from Zanana Akande to the Ombudsman that you're banned from vocational rehabilitation offices on Dufferin Street and Queen's Park. Is that still?
Mr McGlone: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: Are you saying you are getting some rehabilitation or you're not getting anything right now?
Mr McGlone: Right now, I'm getting some rehabilitation at Columbia Neuro-Rehab, which is down the street at Dundas and University, through the moneys that I managed to get through the Ministry of Health.
Mr Murdoch: So we've got the Minister of Health in here now too. That's a separate thing.
Mr McGlone: We have a complex situation here, because once you leave a hospital with a medical problem, you are no longer a Ministry of Health problem; you're a Ministry of Community and Social Services problem. These two ministries do not talk to each other and they will not work together. I've been trying to get the two to work together, and they will not work together.
Mr Murdoch: They're trying it now, but I hear what you're saying, yes.
Mr McGlone: That's what I was trying to do with the SARB.
Mr Murdoch: Where you are at, you have the disability pension from community and social services and CP, but then you have Ministry of Health in some way helping you out with rehabilitation. That's where you're at right now?
Mr McGlone: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: But the main thing is to get something here. You should have had your day in court with the Ombudsman.
Mr McGlone: Yes.
Mr Murdoch: I'm trying to think whether --
Mr McGlone: I need the Ombudsman to come in and make a decision and make the governments go by the rulings of the SARB.
Mr Murdoch: The Ombudsman can't do that. The Ombudsman can only recommend to different ministries. I'm wondering, and maybe we should find out as a committee, what their reasoning is that you weren't accepted as a case.
Mr McGlone: I would like that.
Mr Murdoch: Because that's what we should look at first, if there is something preventing them. We may have to check that out, because all the Ombudsman can do is recommend. They can't make a government agency do something. They can recommend that that happens. They don't have all the powers that some people think.
Mr McGlone: But from what I understand, they have legislative powers. They can come in --
Mr Murdoch: No.
Mr McGlone: Usually what they say, the committees go by.
Mr Murdoch: The committee might and the committee may recommend -- again, this is only a committee also. I make that quite clear: The Ombudsman doesn't have power to do legislation. Only the government has that, and that would have to come through a ministry. They can recommend to a ministry that they should bring something in and change it. That would have to go through the Legislature.
Can we find out, Chair -- I just got this, so I don't see anything here -- why the Ombudsman wouldn't take the case or anything like that? I think we should find out. There may be reasons and we should know them.
The Chair: That's a matter that the committee can consider. It's not part of this process here today.
Mr Murdoch: What is this process for then?
The Chair: This process today is focused on the report of 1993 as proposed to be amended by 1996.
Mr Murdoch: Sorry about that. I know, you're right.
The Chair: But if you have any recommendations as to further activities the committee should engage in, we can raise that at the appropriate time.
Mr Murdoch: We can do that, yes. Right, I hear what you're saying. He's speaking just about the report that was done three years ago. Okay.
Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): Thank you, Gordon, for appearing here today. The previous questions were all very good. Your main thrust, and you said it just a moment ago, was to broaden, to provide better access for people with traumatic brain injuries, and that's duly noted by our party here. What this committee is doing is looking at all aspects of a previous report in 1993 as to how the Ombudsman operates. Accessibility is one of those questions that we're looking at, accountability, confidentiality of cases, the Ombudsman reporting either to the government or to this committee or how that office should conduct itself.
I appreciate your view on accessibility to the Ombudsman's office and I'm quite sure the committee will be discussing that, along with other matters, as they pertain to reports in 1993 and 1996. Hopefully, we're going to have a better system at the end of all this discussion. I thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Thanks, Gordon. I have just a couple of things I wanted to ask you. It said you were severely injured in 1988 and then reinjured in 1992 and 1993. Were you injured the same way in all accidents?
Mr McGlone: Yes, I was further injured in two more motor vehicle accidents. I just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. None of them has been my fault. There is insurance involved with this --
Mr Cleary: That's what I was getting around to.
Mr McGlone: With the no-fault insurance that was brought into place, my insurance company has taken the stance that: "Hey, this isn't our problem. You had a meeting with the government and the government said they would pick up all responsibility for this." So my insurance company has said the government of Ontario, if they want, can take us to court and subrogate all they want.
I don't see what the problem is here. I need services. I've gone through mediation with a lawyer for their insurance company and they said, "Too bad; the government's looking after that." I was a ward of the children's aid society prior to being injured. I don't know who to turn to.
Mr Cleary: The accidents were all with other vehicles?
Mr McGlone: Yes.
1110
Mr Cleary: My second question is, how long ago is it since you've been banned from seeing the Speaker?
Mr McGlone: I've been banned here for almost three years now.
Mr Cleary: What year was the first time?
Mr McGlone: Back in 1994. I have the documentation here.
Mr Cleary: Had you tried to see any Speakers prior to 1994?
Mr McGlone: No. Actually, the banning came through when Al McLean was Speaker -- when the New Democratic Party was in. I went to Chris Stockwell today, the new Speaker now, and I made an appointment to see if I can talk to him about my case, to see if I can have the ban lifted so I can come into this facility and take part in hearings and various other matters that go on here.
I was surprised last week, when I was watching the parliamentary channel, to see that there was a committee for social assistance dealing with long-term care. I did not know anything about this committee. I would have liked to speak at that committee, because that could have been a committee I could have had some very good input into, along with the megacity debate. I wanted to be able to speak at that. I tried to phone in. I wasn't even able to get through and I'm not able to speak at that. I want to say what I think about the megacity issues and stuff like that. With me being banned, I can't come in and make appointments and stuff like that. So if you can help me in having that ban reviewed, I would appreciate that.
Mr Cleary: I just wanted to find out what had happened. I thought maybe it had happened back in 1988 when you first got --
Mr McGlone: No, 1993, 1994, around that time.
The Chair: Did I see Mr Patten's hand? No? Mr McGlone, thank you very much for assisting with our process here this morning.
Mr McGlone: That's it?
The Chair: That's it.
Mr McGlone: Thank you.
The Chair: Our next deputant is Mr Jack Stapleton. Is Mr Stapleton in the room? We're ready when you are.
Mr McGlone: We go to court over this, to hand out these tickets or hand in our registration. We've gone to court three times, then the judge issues a restraining order not to come here. The amount of money we're spending is ridiculous. The mileage money they're spending on me to come down here is insane.
The vocational rehabilitation services do not have anyone involved there to deal with brain injury. They don't have anyone involved to deal with brain injury, then they can't understand when someone does get a little bit upset and a little bit loud. They don't know how to deal with that. They get scared, then they run and hide.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr McGlone.
Mr McGlone: Ms Akande did not run and hide, she gave me the help. That was one good thing that happened that time.
JACK STAPLETON
The Chair: Mr Stapleton? Good morning, Mr Stapleton. As with the others, you will have half an hour to make your presentation. You can use that time as you wish. Any time left over after your presentation will be available for the members to ask questions, beginning with the government party.
Mr Jack Stapleton: That's super. If you don't mind, gentlemen, I'll stand. Is that all right? Thank you, I appreciate that.
First of all, I am not well prepared. It's been 30 years since I've done any public speaking. I learned a little bit down at Ridgetown agricultural college when I graduated out of there. I'm going to turn on a tape recorder; there we go.
Well, it's February 5, and I've been on the road for a day and a half. I'm trying to reconstruct my family life. I come from Lambton county. I suppose you want to know why I would come down here to speak in Toronto, and I'll tell you why I did. It's called the Work of Citizenry, by Donald M. Stewart, from Vital Speeches of the Day, March 1, 1996:
"Choose to do the work of citizenry...whether on the Net, over the phone or, by God, even face to face, we must address the numbing injustices, the insidious barriers, the skewed opportunity structures, and the gross misinformation that so belittle our claim to be a proud" land.
That's what we're all about here. I hope you're here for that reason.
"No, the great social problems probably won't be solved in an admission office or a counsellor's workshop. But we all wear the badge of citizenry, no matter how tarnished from disuse, and enjoy its benefits daily.
"And we bear an added burden as educators, because democracy is a system uniquely confident in the educability of this fair race of humans.
"With or without affirmative action as we have known it, our future won't be bright unless we defeat the spirits of prejudice and discrimination all too present."
I'd like to give this to the chairman of the board right now. Would you pass that up? Thanks. It's going to be a long 30 minutes. I told you I wasn't well prepared.
I brought the Bible. I picked it up last night at a friend's place. I asked him to come. I didn't figure I was a pretty good speaker, and he's more conversant with the situation, but he has the flu. I thought maybe I'd pick a couple of Proverbs here.
"If a man returns evil for good, evil will not depart from his house. The beginning of strife is like letting out water, so quit before the quarrel breaks out. He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord."
I don't know whether you gentlemen -- maybe you are Christians and maybe you're not.
I brought a lot of information for you. I brought a Playboy magazine for you, an article. I won't show you the centre. You wouldn't think I'd read Playboy. It's right here, from March 1996. It says:
"The most coercive government sometimes is not the one in Washington, though it tries. It's more likely to be the one next door. These days the greatest threats to your pursuit of happiness come from your neighbours in the form of zoning boards, bureaucracy, planning commissions and pain-in-the-ass regulators."
Why would I mention this in front of the Ombudsman's committee? Last night I was listening to the radio. I had a flat tire. I couldn't move. I was at Woody's in Woodstock at 4 o'clock in the morning hoping I would get things all gathered up and get all the paperwork down here and get copies done, at 3 cents a copy -- that's the cheapest you can get that I know of -- so I could present you something. Anyway, I'm at Woody's and I'm really sleepy, so I sleep and then my flat tire goes down. At Woody's, they turn the air compressor off and he doesn't open until 8 o'clock in the morning. I had to come down here with not much preparation. I'm losing every which way I can, but I'm going to speak to you from the heart.
1120
The reason for an Ombudsman is to protect the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Speaking of the Ombudsman, I didn't know last night, at 4 o'clock in the morning, that I'd wake up in the morning and be listening about Finland, about the Ombudsman doing his work there. That's his job. It isn't what power you give him. The power you give him is turned around; it's authorizing him by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN. The signature by the government of Canada to the Helsinki accord is to make the Ombudsman capable of addressing insidious barriers and skewed opportunities; people who work under the cover of law, people out to destroy people; to prevent acts of torture from happening -- acts of torture in this country. That's the purpose.
That isn't the only article. I wish I could present it all to you, but you probably would get hung up on some of the other sections of the article, so we'll go on.
I've got a Policy Implementation and Compliance with Administrative Law right here. On page 26 it says, "Presents legal protection," part (b):
"In contrast to the protection of physical integrity, an examination of provincial, federal, international and foreign laws reveals a lack of systemic and organized protection of psychological integrity. As we will note later, protection of psychological integrity poses, for law, difficult problems of evidence. It is relatively easy to establish material.... On the contrary, it is difficult, and sometimes impossible, to establish the impact of psychological interference."
The boy who just left: psychological interference. He can't get any help. He's frustrated, banned from here.
"Even in its relationship to certain physical symptoms, it may be consonant with the rules of evidence.
"On the international legislative scene, a certain number of documents indirectly relate to this question: the United Nations charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the international covenant on civil and political rights. All recognized such fundamental rights as the rights to life, liberty and to refuse to be the subject of experimentation.
"These rights, however, are not precisely defined. Arbitrary detention, for example, would probably be seen as an infringement on fundamental freedom and thus be protected. Similarly, physical abuse or humiliating and degrading punishments would surely fall within the ambit of these texts. What is not certain, however, is that situations involving psychological interference in the absence of physical assault would fall within their scope."
That's what this Ombudsman does. He is to protect people from this government. He is to protect them from the skewed opportunities that this government uses. You're the committee that operates here internally.
Mr Stapleton: The basis of the committee -- its mandate is to turn around and work under the charter of the United Nations. That's the way I've got it figured. As a signatory of the United Nations declarations and being under United Nations power, you were trying to establish a person or an entity or something to give them the opportunity to mandate the international covenants. Would I be wrong? Do you think I'm wrong, John?
Mr Cleary: We're just going to listen to your presentation. If you have any time after, we'll ask questions.
Mr Stapleton: Fine; all right. Don't dodge me.
Anyway, this is what we're trying to talk about. I realize we have a thick book right there; I didn't bring it with me. It was with the other person. He had the flu and I didn't want to catch the flu.
I left the dog. I carry my dog with me; he is very important to my life. Anyway, I didn't want to bring Dawson to Toronto because he might get lost. Consequently, I left him with Herman and Andrew, or I thought I did. I left him at some other location, but when I went there, he wasn't there and he wasn't in the back seat.
Why would I bring this up? The situation is, I told you I wasn't very well prepared for this speech. How much time have I got left, John?
The Chair: Oh, about 15 minutes.
Mr Stapleton: There you go. Tell me when you want to cut it short, when you want to go to lunch.
The Chair: You're doing fine.
Mr Stapleton: Anyway, we have so much evidence here of opportunities that are being destroyed. Last week I had to fill out a form 2. What is a form 2? It's an information sheet like this. You make out the information sheet. You turn it around and sign your name down here, and it makes it a legal document by virtue of the fact that it is signed by a judge. You swear that it's true.
On the "20th day of January 1997" -- and I'm not blowing here -- "this...information...John J. Stapleton, disabled, hereinafter called the informant.
The informant says he has personal knowledge and reasonable and probable grounds to believe and does believe...." It's stated: "I, John J. Stapleton, do hereby swear that:
"(1) Evidence brought to me relates to the necessary acquisition of other documents and opportunities to prevent the continuing injustice of one Betty Baptie of 131 South Vidal Street, apartment 7, in the city of Sarnia, in the county of Lambton.
"(2) Such evidence brings about the necessary acquisition of legal opportunities that our such offices have been served warranted by the province of Ontario and other jurisdictions.
"(3) Such information and documents shall be returned" as signatory "of the informant to make a play call." That's what I'm going to do. I'm going to try to make a played call here, whether or not they did do this to this person.
"(4) Subject has been violated, her due rights under the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Canada bill of rights....
"(6) Proper legal authority shall be informed to alter the course of events so that she may not continue her suffering." I did not want her to suffer any more.
"Please respond forthwith due to this emergency and gravity of this case."
I'll pass that up to you, John.
1130
Interesting: We think the Ontario Human Rights Commission is all-powerful and turned around and made selective, but we were having a discussion about that and I suddenly realized that it had been made selective. They went race, colour, creed, the whole nine yards, but they had forgotten discriminatory application of law.
I never thought I'd be here and I'm sorry I've come in here, really sorry, but I got sent here. You just wait a minute, boys. Get yourselves a drink of water or whatever you want to do. Personally, I like to go out and have a cigarette. I got sent here by a poem:
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
That's why I'm here. That's what it's all about. It's to avoid, turn around and stop this type of Fascism. I've got a copy of Fascism, the whole book right here. I got it down here on -- what's the name of the street? -- College. It's down here at College, over at the bookstore. I've got the whole book right here. I haven't got a copy and I hope I haven't violated -- it's not with intent to violate this man's opportunity to make his discourse. But I think you ought to go down and get one.
They talk about social Darwinism, Chamberlain and Rosenberg and Hitler and Mussolini and then they turn around and conveniently say, "Fascism in action." Boy, have we got it here. We've got it running over here like cancer all over the bodies. When I was coming in, on the radio I listened to a commercial about diabetes and kids. In 1966, four out of 25 were saved from diabetes. In 1997, we've got 18 out of 25 who are saved from diabetes and we're making progress in diabetes. But guess what? This government and this country are going backwards.
In the year I was born, 1945, the war was over. We had defeated Fascism. The United Nations had got together and they had turned around and formed an entity to defeat Fascism. There was a war on. Sons, families, brothers, sisters, whatever your family did in this country, they did it in order to beat Fascism, but guess what, boys? I'm not being disrespectful of you gentlemen. It's coming back, it's slowly, subversively coming back, and that's the importance of the Ombudsman. That's the importance of looking at it in a different direction. That's the importance of not disabling his opportunity. We need you people to mandate his opportunities in order to protect from these insidious injustices.
I didn't use a highlighter on that, so I can't pick out the passage in here, and I will be glad at a later date if that's all right with you, Mr Parker, to provide you with a copy of this.
The Chair: There is a deadline for submission of materials. I'm not sure what that deadline is. I'll have the clerk make you aware of it.
Mr Stapleton: Let me run down there for three cents and I'll make you the copy, because it's the only copy I've got. Have I got to noon?
The Chair: Wait for the clerk to come back and maybe he could help us out.
Mr Stapleton: All right. That's neat. Okay, gentlemen, how much time have I got left here?
The Chair: You have about five minutes.
Mr Stapleton: I guess I'll summarize it up. I told you I was from Lambton county. That's correct, and my tape recorder is doing pretty good. I was at the town meeting, and State Senator Ben Alexander was the moderator, in Durango, Colorado, on May 18, 1995. What happened there is they're worried about their property rights, the right to make a living, the right to be alone, the right to turn around and be able to live, the right to do whatever they want to do as long as it was within legal methods.
Basically they said there that they want to live under the United Nations declaration of rights. So do I. Not in this country, no way, not after they got done butchering my family. You butchered my family. We were in this country for 140 years and still are. They did a nice job. I went everywhere to be protected by United Nations declaration of rights, not to be tortured.
I went everywhere I could possibly go. I went to David Crombie, to the former Governor General of Canada. I went to Mr Ferguson's office. I went to Mr McEwen's office. I went to every lawyer I could find and every one I could afford, but I couldn't defeat Fascism. No way, impossible. I didn't know what an Ombudsman was. It wouldn't do me much good because the Ombudsman would say: "You're not the right colour. You're not the right sex. You're not the right person. We need somebody who qualifies the way this committee" -- the general committee -- "set it up."
Today, because of the situation of the closeness -- you see, I can hit the computer. I don't run a computer but I can have somebody hit the computer and I can talk to somebody in Beijing, I can talk to somebody in Moscow, I can talk to somebody in South America, Juárez, Mexico -- bing, bing, bing, bang, zoom, it's done, and now you're under the scrutiny of the world. We're not going to forget what happened. They say that you're tried by your deeds.
Gentlemen, I got yesterday's paper: "USA Lawyers Say Pause in Executions." Do you know what that's about? Now they turned around and decided that the wholesale slaughter of people in jails is not exactly in their best interests under international covenants since San Antonio, Texas -- nice town, I've been down there about four or five times. I'm a lot better mentally there than I am here, guaranteed.
1140
"Fundamentally, this due process is now systematically lacking in capital cases," says Leslie Harris, chief sponsor of the ABA resolution -- American Bar Association resolution -- "Racial bias also taints the system," she said. "The resolution was opposed to the justice system as well as the ABA president Lee Cooper, of Birmingham, Alabama."
Basically what they're finding out supersedes the situation, that now the information is getting out.
The Chair: Mr Stapleton, I point out that you have about one minute left.
Mr Stapleton: Well, I can end this with a Chinese proverb. How does it go? "If a man wants to move a mountain, the only way he can do it is with a small rock in the beginning." That's what I've given you, the first drop of water from me to you.
The Chair: Mr Stapleton, thank you very much for appearing before us this morning. Thank you for assisting us in our process.
You asked about submitting documents. The clerk tells me there's no deadline per se. These hearings will wrap up next week, so if you're able to get documents to us by this time next week, that will be fine.
Mr Stapleton: I notice you don't have any questions.
The Chair: We've run out of time.
CHRISTOS KOURTSIDIS
Members of the committee, the clerk tells me that Mr Christos Kourtsidis was scheduled to be with us last week. There was a mixup and he didn't appear. He's here today from Windsor, so he's come here at some inconvenience, and he was hoping to appear before us today. I'm in your hands as to how we proceed.
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): We have 15 minutes, Mr Chairman. I would make a suggestion that we hear him when he's come this distance. I request unanimous consent, if possible.
The Chair: Is that satisfactory to all parties? Okay. Mr Kourtsidis, you're heard the committee. Sorry about the mixup, but the committee is happy to hear from you. We have 15 minutes on the clock that we're happy to make available to you.
Mr Stapleton, I wonder if you could move away from the table.
Mr Stapleton: I'll be glad to, sir. He was turning around addressing me and I was answering a question.
The Chair: I appreciate that.
Mr Stapleton: I apologize that I'm holding up your procedures.
The Chair: Nothing of the sort. As soon as you step away, then Mr Kourtsidis can address the committee.
Mr Kourtsidis, we're happy to begin whenever you're ready. We have 15 minutes available to you to use as you wish.
Mr Christos Kourtsidis: I gave you copies of the one side. I'm a little bit frustrated with the Ombudsman's role. I wish I had more time to speak with you and answer some of your questions about where I'm wrong and what I'm doing, and the answers are coming to the negative. I have to have a little more time.
The thing is, those copies, you see the conflict I had with the Ombudsman and with the worker adviser, the compensation circle, one page here -- it was published in the newspaper report from the Ombudsman of Quebec. Mr Jacoby's report recommends a citizen's charter of rights enshrining principles of transparency, justice and accountability to public officials.
I don't know why the Ombudsman of Ontario doesn't say something like that, or I believe he falls to accusations like the Ombudsman of Quebec. If not, you can see I have in a letter the conflict I have with the worker adviser. He threw my file out of the thing in which I believe my file has a place. If he wasn't satisfied with my file, he could have gone home and left my file there. He sent a letter to his secretary saying that if I call, "Tell him I'm busy." I keep calling the compensation board and the Ombudsman has a system known to them and they say that no, that's not existing, although it's very public and you can see it.
On the other side, the worker adviser says in the letter that I withdrew from them. I didn't withdraw from them. I want them either pro or against me, that we appear in the tribunal and the Ombudsman is a witness of that. I signed an authorization to them and sent it in front of the worker adviser and the worker adviser is lying on all occasions.
She sent a letter to Mrs Iacobelli, and Mrs Iacobelli said I received authorization from Mr LaPorte, but she doesn't say what Mrs Iacobelli told them, the truth, neither Mr McCaffery. Mr McCaffery asked her to represent me. She said, "No, I'm not going to represent him." Mr McCaffery didn't tell her that I didn't sign an authorization.
The main thing is that the Ombudsman says I didn't give them authorization, which they agreed with, the authorization. The first time I went to the Office of the Worker Adviser and I signed that authorization, I called them back and told them I had signed the authorization. They said I didn't sign authorization. You can see the Ombudsman's -- the tribunal's words, the counsellor, respond to both of them.
One thing is that when I went to the worker's adviser and I asked them to represent me, and I said I want to go to the tribunal and finish with everything so I don't have to go back, he says, "I'm to represent you on the two issues." I said: "Two issues? You make two issues. I have 10 issues and I want you to represent me on all 10 issues." He says, "No." I said: "I am the one who wants the representation. Whoever told you to represent me on two issues, it's his own problem, not my problem. My problem is the entire file." He said, "No, I cannot represent you on those two issues," and he sent me the file home.
When he sent me the file home and I saw the note, I was frustrated. I went out of my way sometimes and I feel everything bothers me in these circumstances. I said an anglophone waits 10 times more than an allophone even when they are right and we are wrong.
I talked to the worker adviser to tape the conversation. I taped the conversation and went to the Ombudsman and spoke to this man. I said to him that an anglophone scores 10 and who scores zero, and he purposely, the way we were talking -- he had no right to take the tape recorder, to put it on his head. He had long hair and he erased the tape purposely.
There is no doubt there are mistakes. That was not a mistake. I asked them to change this man, and my son suggested too that I have to pick up someone else and have my choice to pick up. They refused to give me another one to replace him.
They say they're fair. Who can judge their fairness? This man who erased the tape told me: "What can you do? Tell me, what can you do?" I said I can do nothing. You cannot take the workers' compensation people and the Ombudsman to court. Even if you take them to court, we are poor people who cannot go to court. We have no access to the courts. We need money. How can we get to the money? Where are you going to complain? You are going to the same comrades.
1150
The questioner questioned the counsellor of the tribunal and he sent me that report, what questions he said to the counsellor. He didn't send me what answers he's got from that tribunal counsellor, the Ombudsman. I believe we can have something more than the Ombudsman offers. The Ombudsman is a comrade and they stick together and they don't give us the help we need. Honestly, they don't give us the help we need. That's the way it feels. I have nothing else.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You've left us with about five minutes for questions, beginning with the opposition caucus.
Mr Hoy: Thank you very much for your presentation this morning, sir. I appreciate it very much. You've given us some material here that I'm going to have to read through, but I think, similar to a gentleman who spoke earlier this morning, you're looking for broader access to and help from the Ombudsman.
Mr Kourtsidis: Not only more access, more honesty. We don't find honesty in the Ombudsman. There is no honesty in the Ombudsman. There is not the office that can tell you that you are right and that will do what they can. They listen to your questions and they intimidate you later on. Those letters, I believe, that I didn't sign an authorization are intimidation. They are not true, honest words face to face between two men.
When my son wrote him and said you have to leave that and somebody else takes over, they refused to change him. Then another person answered that letter -- I didn't sign authorization. It's Mickey Mouse, like the government does, the compensation does, changes one worker here and one there and leaves you in the half and say, "Oh well, I forgot," or "She's not here any more. We don't know where she is." If you go back to find her inside the office, she says, "I don't remember." Instead of answering the letter that I didn't sign authorization, Laura answered it and said, "You didn't leave an authorization." If you say I answered, I signed authorization, she says, "Oh, I didn't know." What can you say?
The time I went for that complaint, she was there and the chairman was there. One of the lawyers -- sometimes I see this man. I am not different from him. I'm frustrated sometimes and go out of line with threats and profanities. You hit the wall and there is no exit on both sides and you are frustrated and you sound unreasonable. Everything bothers you, everything comes out of your mouth and spells it out. I'm not allowed to go there although I've never touched anybody. I spoke profanities or threats but I've never touched anybody. I never carry any weapon to show that I mean threats. My words, when I tell you I'm going to kill you -- to the end I said, "Tell me, what can I do?" I said "I'm going to kill you," to show you my frustration.
Mr Hoy: Thank you very much.
Mr O'Toole: Just to understand, the letter from the Ombudsman's office stated that you still have the opportunity to go the injured workers' department. Is that right?
Mr Kourtsidis: Adviser.
Mr O'Toole: Adviser, yes.
Mr Kourtsidis: I don't have that letter, no. It's the worker's adviser?
Mr O'Toole: Yes, the Office of the Worker Adviser.
Mr Kourtsidis: She doesn't want to come there.
Mr O'Toole: No, no. The Ombudsman doesn't have a role in this. You still have the opportunity to appeal to the worker adviser.
Mr Kourtsidis: About a month ago the worker adviser wrote me a letter and told me about that and she wouldn't represent me. If you phone the counsellor who is in the tribunal, he knows the whole event. I take a letter from the Ombudsman and I send it to him. I take a letter from him and send it to the Ombudsman and vice versa. I provide the communication line. I sent it to all of them to understand what I am saying.
She won't represent me. She sent me the file and she told me I'm debating the drafts from 1971 to 1974 and she said something to the effect that the increase was 2%, 4% and I overpaid. The increase in the second year was 10%, 8% in 1972 and 12% in 1973 in legislation amendments. She says I overpaid 4%, 2%, but she says the increase was 4% or 2%. That's not true.
Mr O'Toole: Are you on compensation right now?
Mr Kourtsidis: Yes, sir.
Mr O'Toole: For how long?
Mr Kourtsidis: I injured myself in 1966, and from 1970 I didn't work. There is another thing. One of the doctors that I have -- I carried water and I broke my neck and with that thing, I have a neck injury and my lawyer is pursuing it now. I call those doctors evil people. This guy is evil. He said, "There is no fracture." Everybody can see it. I have a film of the fracture. It is here. Anybody can see the fracture. You don't have to be an expert to see it. All the doctors I've seen said the same thing, and I went to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and told them that they blackmailed me and I went to the board of health.
I had the reports and I pursued only one more doctor, a Pakistani doctor. I felt he was the instigator. I didn't want to see any other doctors because the other doctors had the same report, one accusing one and don't accuse the other.
The Chair: Mr Kourtsidis, that takes us to the top of the hour. We're out of time this morning. Thank you very much for appearing before us this morning and for assisting with our process.
This committee stands adjourned until next week.
The committee adjourned at 11:58.