REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

CONTENTS

Wednesday 4 June 1997

Review of the Office of the Ombudsman

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUDSMAN

Chair / Président: Mr John O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr DaveBoushy (Sarnia PC)

Mr BruceCrozier (Essex South / -Sud L)

Mr PatHoy (Essex-Kent L)

Mr RonJohnson (Brantford PC)

Mr Jean-MarcLalonde (Prescott and Russell / Prescott et Russell L)

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)

Mr RosarioMarchese (Fort York ND)

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East / -Est PC)

Mr BillMurdoch (Grey-Owen Sound PC)

Mr John R. O'Toole (Durham East / -Est PC)

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa PC)

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

Mr TrevorPettit (Hamilton Mountain PC)

Mr LenWood (Cochrane North / -Nord ND)

Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:

Mr JohnHastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)

Mrs MargaretMarland (Mississauga South PC)

Clerk / Greffier: Mr Franco Carrozza

Staff / Personnel: Mr Philip Kaye, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1016 in room 151.

REVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

The Chair (Mr John O'Toole): I call the meeting to order. The clerk has made every effort to contact those persons who are members of this committee. I gather it's been the expression of the committee that we would like or prefer to have representation from all three parties to proceed with our disposition of the 1993 report.

Are there any comments from the Liberal side before we formally get started? Yes, Mr Hoy.

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I will make a brief comment. I think it has been some time since we got to this date where we would be reviewing this particular report. We've had submissions made over a rather extended period of time, both from the Ombudsman and others, and they were all very valuable to us.

I think it's important to remember that the Ombudsman currently is a last resort for the people of Ontario who have complaints against the government. It is my understanding the report of 1993 was never tabled. Also, I would mention that I think there are only four of the signatories to that report in the Legislature today, which is quite an interesting point.

As well, the committee membership has changed over time. I am looking back at a document I was given back in March 1996 with regard to these reports. There was discussion at that time about certain revisions. I think, from at least two parties, a great number of people on the committee have changed in role, for whatever reason there might be. So I think we'll have to be somewhat cautious about this as we approach it with the new membership that we have here.

The submissions made to the committee were very helpful. I think they give us ample direction and I think they will give us some cause for some discussion -- not lengthy, but I think we should give the review, for our part, some chance for questions and debate, but not to the extent that it would be prohibitive.

The Chair: Very good. Just one point of clarification: The clerk has pointed out quite capably and quite correctly that the Ombudsman's committee did table the report with the Legislature. The report was never adopted, and it subsequently was referred back to the committee. That's where this new government and this new committee, which has had a variety of membership, have gone through a very labour-intensive, detailed workthrough of every one of the 44 recommendations.

We have before us this morning the report -- I gather everyone has a copy of that report -- as well as a copy of the working paper. The working paper outlines nine of the recommendations, which were revised after the hearing process, after the 1993 report was reviewed the second time. Is that not right? The researcher for the committee could perhaps bring us up to date to know exactly where we are.

There has been a comprehensive review of the original report -- this report -- and from it, the committee, which has changed membership, has come up with a working paper with some revised amendments -- the same amendments but revised, if I'm correct, Philip.

Mr Philip Kaye: That's correct. The committee, in the working paper, proposed revisions to nine of the recommendations. There weren't public hearings prior to the working paper being drafted, and then the public hearings were conducted last fall on both the working paper and the 1993 report.

The Chair: With that kind of background, we are at page 59, recommendation 18, I believe, in the full report. In the working paper I'm not sure exactly where we are, but there were revisions to 20, so we must be still on 18. Is that what we're doing, reviewing each one of the recommendations?

Mr Kaye: Last week I highlighted the areas of contention that had arisen during the hearings, and in giving that overview I was intending to review the entire submissions.

The Chair: The clerk has recommended, and I would ask the committee to adopt this, that we stick with this report, the working paper, and review each one of those revised recommendations. If we focus on this, if we can get the acceptance of those, I think we'd make some progress this morning. In that respect we're on page 1, "Public Comment by Ombudsman on Investigation," and the revised recommendation we have before us, revision 7.

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Chair, I'm not clear on that. We had reached a certain point last week when Mr Kaye was doing his review. Are you suggesting we just continue from where we were last week?

The Chair: That's kind of what I'm suggesting.

Mr Pettit: Is that the idea?

Mr Kaye: I finished my review in terms of highlighting the most contentious issues that have been raised during the hearings. Considering that the hearings were both on the 1993 report and on the working paper, I'm not sure which approach the committee might wish to follow in terms of whether to begin with the working paper or the most contentious issues that arose during the hearings.

The Chair: Isn't the working paper the most contentious issues?

Mr Kaye: Not in terms of the submissions that came out during the hearings.

The Chair: But they were included in it?

Mr Kaye: Yes. The submissions did refer to the working paper, but they also refer to the 1993 report. The most contentious issues were not addressed in the working paper but in the 1993 report. The most contentious issues were, first of all, that the committee's mandate be expanded to include a role to monitor and review the exercise of the Ombudsman's functions and, secondly, that the Ombudsman's estimates be referred to this committee after they had gone to the Board of Internal Economy or that they be referred directly to the committee and not go to the Board of Internal Economy at all.

The Chair: At this point in time, I'll put it open to the committee to make comment as to which way they'd prefer to proceed.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I think we should not prejudge what may or may not be controversial. That will emerge in our own discussion. What is controversial to others out there may not be controversial to members of this committee and vice versa. I would suggest that we just go through the 1993 report in order and raise each of the recommendations in the order in which they appear and see what discussion arises. We may find that some of them go quickly; we may find that some of them give rise to some discussion, but we won't know until we get into it.

Bearing in mind that some of the recommendations in the 1993 report have already been revised in a provisional manner by this committee in earlier sittings, about a year ago, and that those revisions appear in the working paper, so when we come to those provisions, we'll want to have both documents in front of us, together with the transcript of the submissions that were made in the most recent public hearings. I'd start with number one and just go through, starting with the first recommendation in the 1993 report.

The Chair: I hope we're not repeating. I think perhaps it would be wise if we did start at number 1 and perhaps it would be as quick to go through.

Mr Hoy: I would agree. We have discussed over a long period of time all of these recommendations and in some cases we have discussed at length certain recommendations, but we have not adopted any of the recommendations. We have looked at them and in some cases from time to time we have discussed them and maybe questioned such people as the Ombudsman and others who appeared before the committee about certain ones. I would agree with Mr Parker that we go through them one by one. I think he's looking for adoption of this report so that we can present it when our work is done.

The Chair: The researcher has just pointed out to me that on March 19, 1997, there was a report issued by the counsel and research officer: Revised Summary of Recommendations re Submissions on the Ombudsman Committee Report "Review of the Office of the Ombudsman"' and Related Working Paper. Do members of the committee have this report with them? Again, it's March 19, 1997, and it was given to you last week.

Mr Parker: Yes, I've got it.

The Chair: Let's just check to make sure here that I have it. I tried to get together all of the pieces of this committee.

My thinking is, we should be sure that we're reviewing to the original report because if there are revisions, we should refer the revisions back to the original report. To be clear, the report is going to be tabled again, it's my understanding.

Mr Parker: If that's the wish of the committee, that's fine.

The Chair: That's kind of where we'd like to get to, in a revised format. So we'll stick to the original report, having this as a reference document with us. Very good.

We have before us recommendation 1: "That the committee consider, as part of its proposed review of the need for new rules, whether there is a need to formulate rules to govern how the Ombudsman conducts investigations of a systemic nature."

Any comments on recommendation 1?

Mr Parker: Some comments were registered by various deponents in respect of this recommendation. The Ombudsman commented, the Ombudsman for Quebec commented and two other deponents before the committee commented. However, I see the first recommendation as general in nature, opening the door for potential future discussion but not really having an immediate effect other than that. By this I mean that recommendation 1 is merely a recommendation that a further review be conducted into this one question, but it doesn't purport to answer that question.

I see recommendation 1 as harmless in its present form. I appreciate the submissions that have been made in respect of the first submission, but I think we are safe in adopting the first submission and leaving our minds open as to what to do with it down the road. The submissions that have been made before us already will be useful in that future investigation. I don't see any reason not to adopt recommendation 1 and leave it to a future day to determine what to do about it, whether we want to pursue it or whether we're happy with things as they are.

Mr Hoy: I appreciate the comments previously made. In March 1996, we were given this particular recommendation and a draft revision. I note that the draft revision does not appear in the working paper as one of those items of concern.

At the time, I discussed with Mr Galt at the subcommittee level that we in our party had a problem with this particular recommendation. We are going back quite some time, I appreciate. This is March 1996 I'm talking about, so memories may have to be brought forward quite a bit, and the fact that Mr Galt is not here now is also of concern. But we do have a problem with this particular recommendation. I suppose at the time it also entailed the draft revision, that this particular recommendation that shows in the 1993 report be revised.

To be clear, you are talking about the 1993 and not the draft revision that I was given in March 1996?

Mr Parker: That's correct, but that's only because I'm not -- I hate to say "not aware of the most recent revision," but it has skipped my mind and I don't have it in front of me. I'm open to your recommendation as to how it might be amended.

Mr Hoy: If I might speak further then, if we are only talking about the recommendation number 1 that appears in the 1993 report, I think it does say "whether there is a need to formulate rules." So perhaps with that statement, I could agree with Mr Parker that it is basically harmless and would be more effective by a recommendation that appears in the report later. It does say "whether there is a need to formulate rules to govern how the Ombudsman conducts investigations of a systemic nature." I quite agree with you that later in the report we'll have to decide whether that need is there. So if we are talking about as it appeared in the 1993 and not the draft revision, I would support your contention.

The Chair: I guess that's the first recommendation. At this time, all three parties aren't here. It would appear that we would like to postpone any further discussion on recommendation number 1. I would ask the committee --

Mr Parker: I will just add this further comment. Pat, I now remember what you're talking about, yes. I wasn't present at that time. That's why it's taking a while for the penny to drop, but I remember when that discussion was initially held, our caucus put forward a recommendation. That recommendation has been withdrawn and we're happy with item 1 as it appears in the 1993 report. We're not going to let a little thing like that come between friends.

The Chair: For the other members of the committee, I think it's important to know that Mr Hoy has some continuity with this committee, as does Mr Parker, the former Chair of the committee. So those of us who are new to this are somewhat missing in this discussion.

Mr Parker: Not at all.

Clerk of the Committee (Mr Franco Carrozza): The institutional members.

The Chair: Yes, the institutional members are more informed.

Mr Hoy: If we are going to discuss these recommendations, as we have already have started, then are we now saying that we will wait for representation from others before we make a decision?

Mr Parker: Let me say that I'm not comfortable proceeding with a final decision in the absence of the third party.

Mr Hoy: I wonder, Mr Chair, if we couldn't perhaps have a five-minute recess, or three minutes.

The Chair: Is this a formal request for a recess? Do I have consent for a recess for five minutes?

Mr Parker: I give consent for a recess.

The Chair: This committee stands recessed for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 1035 to 1037.

The Chair: We reconvene this meeting. I have unanimous consent.

Mr Parker: Mr Chair, I would like to bring a motion. We've had some discussion on the record and frankly some discussion off the record, and it all comes to the same thing, which is that those present would like to have a fuller committee in order to proceed with this matter. The third party is not represented here this morning and we don't feel it's appropriate to get too heavily into the merits of these issues in the absence of the third party.

I bring the motion that we adjourn for today and reconvene at your call to continue the review of the 1993 report at that time.

The Chair: We have a motion by Mr Parker. Are there any other comments?

Mr Hoy: I would just simply say that I agree with the motion and concur with Mr Parker that we recess until the call of the Chair.

The Chair: Any other comments? If not, I'll call the question.

All those in support? Agreed? Opposed? That's carried.

The committee adjourned at 1038.